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

What is the basis of your proposal? As for now, I cannot see the need to change it. What needs to be changed is the discussion about gun control.

It would not fix the problem because the Liberals don't understand simple English. They will always say what they "believe" it means, not what it actually means.

Look how seldom 38 States agree on something. If the naive governor Jerry Brown's of the United States got together to agree on this is going to take decades but in the meantime the bad guys don't care and laugh at Progressive but will still have guns and will continue to kill and this is true even here in Canada.

In order for some to fully understand why certain words and phrases were used in the creation of the Constitution, one would need to place themselves in the same time period the Constitution was created. Some words and phrases had different meanings than they do today, obviously. This link is to an article I found that analyzes the terminology (specifically, the 2nd Amendment) used and how it could possibly have been intended to read and how it would translate to today's definitions of the words and phrases.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

Once you open it up to being revised the changes would get out of meaningful hand.

The militia part can be somewhat confusing. It can theoretically be used to say that only those in the National Guard/Reserve are allowed to own firearms (which I obviously don't agree with).

What many people either forget or never knew is that in Colonial times, the militia was every able bodied man capable of using a firearm. Thus the militia was "the people" as a whole. Any serious study of the Founding Father's writing from the time make it clear that they intended for everyone to have the right to own firearms.

It is only confusing to those who do not study history.

The first phrase, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is the founding fathers recognizing that the government needs an armed force to orotect itself. The second phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Is the Founders recognizing the people must have the ability to protect itself from the militia (under the control of the government).

Their experience was that England took away their guns and made it easier to control them.

I consider it clear and unambiguous as it is. The problem lies in the common historical malpractice of modernism. This is the practice of examining historical events and documents as if they had occurred or been written today, rather than in the past. It is only in trying to ascribe today's definitions to the words of the past that we start confusing people regarding what the intent and meaning of those past words were. That's the technique that the communist (Gasp! I used the "c" word, which describes what they are, instead of the "politically correct" euphemisms for communism, like "progressives" or "leftists" or "socialists"! Tsk! Tsk!) morons trying to undermine the 2nd amendment use.
There IS no ambiguity. The word "people" doesn't change in meaning from the first, to the second, to the fourth amendment. And the meaning of the introductory phrase has to be seen in the context of what those words meant AT THE TIME. So, since you've asked for opinions, here's mine: Leave it alone! It's been clear and unambiguous for over 200 years. No amount of communist braying today will change history.

As a nation, we have allowed the Second Amendment to become the bastard-child of the Constitution. In the Federalist Papers, the intent of the Second Amendment is well documented. The Second Amendment is not a phrase to be bantered about like some prophesetical evangelist on a street corner. The militia and “we the people” are one-in-the-same. The people are armed so they may stand up against factions and tyranny that work to disrupt the free nation that was formed. The “shall not be infringed” is reference to any action by the government (federal or states) to inhibit the right of the people to bear arms. While times have changed, and our governments and society in general have become more civilized (so-to-speak), armed insurrection against a tyrannical government is the right of the people, no matter how unlikely it is to occur in our lifetime, or how much our nation has changed since the 1700’s. So I say, “No”, the 2nd Amendment is very clear on the right of the people and should not be amended in any fashion.