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

I've always made it a point to opponents of the "people" who constantly harp on militia to just go back, find even a 19th century dictionary and look up the meaning of militia. It's very clear!

How is the phrasing confusing? “A well-regulated militia,” - so far pretty straight forward: The militia (the portion of the citizens who are physically and mentally capable of defending their home, municipality, county, state and nation, but are not serving in an organized military force) having laws and rules that govern their ability to possess, bear and if necessary, use such weapons and tactics as they know or have been trained in; “being necessary for the security of a free state,”: again, sounds pretty straight forward. If the citizens of a particular governmental jurisdiction wish to retain the rights, freedoms, liberties and other perquisites that come with being a citizen, they have a civic duty to defend themselves, their homes and the lives and homes of their fellow citizens against those who would wish to strip those rights and privileges from them.

The National Guard May have it’s historical roots tied into the colonial and subsequently the state militias but once the federal government took over the militias and has the authority to mobilize those people, they are no longer the militia as it is defined historically.

The militia has always been a group of citizens who organize to work in a paramilitary fashion as a defense force for their community (generally city/township or county) and will supplement the forces of the individual state to ensure its security and the preservation of the rights and privileges of citizenship in that state.

What is not clear? The constitution makes it clear that this was a right bestowed upon you by you creator. You don not have constitutional right,s that is the biggest mistake made. You have inalienable right bestowed by your creator and the constitution only puts restrictions on your government

Its not the responsible gun owner that's the problem. It is those who are irresponsible and mentally depraved that jepordise the rest

Our problem in general, is reading comprehension, not the words written. It is best left as is. "Well regulated" at the time of writing meant "self disciplined" effectively.

Why change it??? I find it clear, concise and completely understandable. Instead of changing the language, try understanding the underlying meanings as written. Making something easier for fools to understand doesn't make it better or clearer.

Not only NO but HELL NO!

The amendment was written in language that was very clear and unambiguous for the time. Even if the language were changed to reflect today's vernacular, it would not matter a jot or tittle, they will not be satisfied until every firearm is safely in the hands of those they deem worthy.

I fear opening that can of worms. I think it should be left as it is. Even well meaning people will want to make unnecessary changes. The Supreme Court ruled in favor and set precedent. They rely more on precedent than almost anything so unless we have a solid majority of liberals on the Court it isn't going to change.

I have no problem with letting the 2nd amendment stand as is. It's already been proven in the courts that congress, and state governments can in fact make limits to what a private citizen can and can't own in regards to arms. There are already bans against private citizens owning any number of weapons, you can't own a fully automatic weapon, or a rocket launcher, or grenades, etc. I do support nationwide back ground checks, limits on the number of rounds newly manufactured guns and magazines can hold. Does a Private citizen really need a Magazine with a capacity of over 20 rounds for personal protection, or any other legal purpose? This is such a hot button issue that any discussion, or compromise is automatically shut down, regardless of which side proposes it.