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

What's confusing about that?

1. Founding Fathers made Amendments to the Constitution difficult for a reason;
2. You do not want to open that Pandora's Box;
3. What other Amendments or parts of the Constitution do you think needs 'correction'?;
4. Them fellers back then were pretty damn smart, weren't they?

The phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," should not be removed because it identifies a purpose behind the establishment of the amendment. The majority of the time that the 2nd amendment is cited by pro-gun critics, this phrase is omitted for the purposes of promoting their agenda. In it's current context, the 2nd amendment was written to establish that the citizens are the country's first line of defense against foreign invaders. The guarantee that our citizens are armed is a huge deterrent to anyone who would be foolish enough to try to invade as, at the last report that I read, firearms in the hands of private citizens outnumber the firearms of the police & military by 4 to 1. Although militias organized by individual states have mostly been replaced by the National Guard, which receives military training and falls under the control of the state's governor, the 2nd amendment is still very relevant as it's written.

Just as relevant now as it was then. Only those who wish to strip law abiding citizens of their rights have interpreted the words to fit their narrative. Leave it alone!

There is no need to do that. The definition of "Militia" is clearly laid out in 10 USC 311: Militia: composition and classes.

311 . Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States 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.

Anti-gun fanatics are too dense to understand this

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=militia&f=treesort&fq=true&num=5&hl=true

To me it clear as can be. Our forefathers knew exactly what the were doing when the included statement in the Constitution. Leave it alone as written. Once the door is open to allow change then the people it was written to protect us will from will have a doorway to take away our guns.

I am confident most of us here can agree to leave it as it stands. How the Amendments were written may be confusing to some, but there are finely driven explanations of each. It is unfortunate that many Americans do not have a thorough understanding of their constitutional rights. I have always been a supporter of teaching this in school (along with teaching students how to do their taxes). But the Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, i.e. ownership of arms. This discussion could be brought up to any of the other amendments simply because many folks do not understand the meaning or their own rights as a whole. It is sad that this is the case in many arguments involving our constitution.

Leave it alone. I personally have no difficulty understanding what it means.

What is the 1776 definition of Arms?

I'll tell you straight. The continuation, declaration of independence, and the amendments are written just fine. There is NO confusion with any of it. All it is, the left is just wanting to try and make it confusing so that they can change it and dominate people's thoughts. It has lasted and endured since 1776 and no confusion.