Should the 2d Amendment be amended to remove the confusing first phrase?

No change is necessary. It's fine the way it's written and should forever be upheld.

I never have heard anyone say that the language was confusing.

https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ

What's confusing?

There is an organization that has been moving from country to country in an attempt to remove the peoples right to bare arms. Why? In every country that has lost their private owner ship of weapons the crime rate has increased, why, because only the criminals posses arms. A law abiding citizen will always abide by the laws of the land, don't expect the same from criminals for if they did there would be no crime.

The problem with any discussion is we will only be offered two solutions; 1. Everyone is armed to the teeth or 2. No one is armed. If the far left and far right would STFU for awhile, well, who knows......

Change it. It’s out of line with today’s realities.

I have nothing against the right to bear arms, in fact I too am a gun owner and hunter, but arms such as we now have, namely assault style military weapons could never been thought of back when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. I’m sure if these weapons were around then, our founding fathers would have been much more thoughtful when writing the Consittution. Yes, it needs to be reviewed and rewritten to reflect today.

If it was a "God" given right, wouldn't he have given the right to food and shelter over a weapon?

Who's doing the amending? Keep it the same. Do you really trust the Politicians that we have today? I'm talking about both sides of the aisle. The Supreme Court is there and they will do the interpretation of the laws.

No, you're absolutely right. In the present atmosphere, any attempt to change the second amendment would more likely destroy it. What is needed is education about why we need it, unlikely to come about in today's schools.
In colonial times, far-flung settlements needed to count on the ability of citizens to come together to protect one another from common dangers, thus the "militia." Contrary to Madison's dictum, this was never a very organized group. A call would go out, generally from local constables, for armed men to come to a certain locale to fight a common foe. They would bring their own arms and provisions and when the problem was taken care of they would go back to tending their fields. That simple.
While there may have been more experienced men who led, you'll never hear reference to chains of command, militia headquarters, clerks, cooks or any other permanent troopers. They didn't exist. it was just organized enough to get everyone together for a while then to tell them it was time to go home.
When Madison wrote : "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State," this is what he was talking about, not exactly the First Marine Division. It was surplusage, not carrying the gravamen of the next phrase "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But if you call a constitutional convention now to simplify it, you'll never recognize the product. Leave it be!