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

It's too bad that as military professionals, we have to sink to name calling. In my years of military service leading up to retirement, I have always hoped that we could be the one segment of society who could voice an opinion based upon logical thought. Now I see that even among the senior ranks, we are rolling in the mud of name calling and insults. Can we remember what we stand for, offer an opinion based on serious thought, and remember that we are ONE military, not necessary of one mindset, but made up of the segment of society who represents the greatest Country on Earth?
Thank you-
Master Sergeant Leasha Dixson
Retired

Keep it just like it is

There is no confusion. Those simple, forthright words say exactly what the Founding Fathers intended. They convey an undeniable and immutable truth. The issue yesterday, today, and, inevitably, tomorrow is the constant barrage of liberal interpretations, based not upon legal principles, but social contexts of the day, always an ill-advised and ignorant practice.

I don't think so... Amending the Bill of Rights is a slippery slope... MSgt George Cater

An important fact to consider regarding the relationship of the people and the militia: At that time, most if not all of the original 13 states had laws that defined every able-bodied man as a member of the militia. Each man was required to provide his own arms. Only two years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the U.S passed the Second Militia Act of 1792 which codified this obligation including the specific requirements for arms and ammunition each person should provide. Therefore, the underlying assumption lost on most of us today is that almost EVERYBODY was in the militia and was expected to bring their own arms for that service. Even today, the Illinois Constitution states that every able-bodied resident is in the militia.

I love that pic you used with the question.

Definitely not I don't see anything confusing about this statement!

Nothing confusing about it, leave it alone!

Honest Constitutional historians agree that the lynchpin of all 10 Bill of Rights amendments is that power should be reserved to the lowest level possible. Only issues that cannot be addressed by individuals as "We the People" or the individual states are responsibilities of the federal government (common defense, etc).
The text of the 10 amendments is either neutral or negative about the federal government. The states had positive, neutral, and negative connotations. It is only positive about the rights of the people. It is only logical that the Founders viewed government, at every level, as a necessary evil; as a fail-safe for the democratic republic, they reserved power, as much as possible, to the lowest levels.
Just because 50% +1 vote for an unconstitutional law, it is still illegal since the Constitution guarantees these rights to all American citizens.

The way it was originally written was to point out that every able bodied person is actually a member of the militia and as such is invested with the defense of this nation. I believe it was written poorly to keep it ever in the forefront of Americans hearts and minds, and never take the defense of ourselves, others and the nation for granted. I would say it should stand as is.