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

Leave it alone, it is clear and not confusing, unless you deliberately try to confuse the issue by ignoring rules of grammar and logic.

No; if you are too stupid to understand it you should just sit in the conner and shut up.

As US Code 10246 defines what the Militia is, as does every Constitution of every State, there is no need to change the 2nd Amendment. What is required is that we hold those who we have chosen to serve in public office to a higher standard, and make them study what they are arguing against before allowing them to do so. The Militia consists of all able bodied persons, with certain exceptions, between the ages of 17 and 45. So all these reporters and politicians who fit that criteria are part of the very Militia that they rally against. This Nation was founded on the premise of a Citizen Army. The Founders were dead set against a standing Army, which is why the Constitution was written to give funding to the Navy, but only fund the Army when needed: Article I Section VIII.12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. Article I Section VIII.13. To provide and maintain a Navy. We do not need to change the Bill of Rights, we need the politicians around the Nation to uphold what it stands for. The fact that we have politicians who Swear an Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States, yet legislate opposite of what it says, should send up a red flag to anyone who still has a few brain cells rattling around in their heads. We, as a Nation, need to change our politicians, not our Constitution or Bill of Rights.

There is nothing ambiguous about the 2d amendment as written. It has been made ambiguous by the radical right, which appears to be a front for the Russian gov't. The words that are ALWAYS ignored by those claim ambiguity are, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", clearly refer to what is not the National Guard, and not to individual citizens.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has, in effect, written these words out of the Constitution, similarly to what was done in the Dred Scott decision. What can be written out can be later written back in. Before entering into this debate, I suggest that everyone read the Amendment in its entirety.

NO, NO and again, NO.

This is not a hunting amendment. This is a writing that puts the responsibility for safety and security on the people and provides the ultimate restriction on overreaching, tyrannical governments. It is a section of the Bill of Rights that allows a people to be free despite those who want to abdicate their responsibilities of self government, safety and security to the government. It is not to be used or viewed lightly in its responsibilities but it a constant reminder about who ultimately runs things in this nation. Not Democrats, not Republicans, not Libritarians, not the Green Peace party and not big corporations. When any government infringes on the rights of the people and thier self governance responsibility, the people, not lightly (again) decided to work together as the founders did and use their ultimate rights to hold tyrannies in check.

If you try to clarify the wording by changing the wording, you provide the opportunity for those with bad intentions to take control and change the very nature of the nation itself; that of the right of self-governance despite their desire to rule over you. Do not change the wording....“It is necessay to the security of a free state...”.

The supreme court has already split the first words away from the rest of the amendment, a grievace error in judgement. IMHO: The amendment should be enforced as it was originally written, it's not that long or hard to understand. If people want to own weapons for self-defense or other purposes, they need to be a member of a well-organized militia... period. Anything short of that violates the constitution.

I am going to make just two suggestions regarding the Second Amendment, the first is read James Madison's original proposed Amendments to the Constitution of June 8, 1789, paying particular attention to each and every article of Amendment that he proposed. Next read the DC v Heller Decision very carefully, the read the McDonald et al v the City of Chicago et al decision and again pay particular attention to the entire decision, USSC. Once you have done thee two things, and do so with an open mind and open heart, then come back and tell me if you still have issues with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, (in particular the 2nd Amendment), as well as the other 17 Amendments. You might also take the time to read the life of Chief Justice John Marshall, the longest serving Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Seriously, have you ever seen anything the Government wants to 'Clarify' become any clearer or easier to understand when they start screwing around with it?

Those of us who have guns understand the enormity of that law, and we have no problem understanding it. If I hear one more person howl "But they don't need to hunt anymore... so why do they need guns?" or the even better "That was written for muzzle loaders... it doesn't mean..." Oye.

If that law is 'taken under consideration to clarify, it would be sliced and diced until it would be non-existent.

The first sentence, about a well regulated militia, is only problematic if you are female or over age 45. The militia is defined (well regulated) in 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes. The militia consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I say leave the second amendment alone! It was written the way it is for a reason.