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

No there's nothing confusing about it, it's in clear English and has stood the test of time from loony lefts for over 200 years. They keep trying to redefine what the language says. Thats like trying to redefine the 10 Commandments, God was very clear on it.

First of all, people need to realize that the "militia" is not the national guard. According to the constitution of the state of Arizona (and many other states) "The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all able bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 46 years and those between said ages who shall have declared their intention to become citizens of these United States, residing therein, subject to such exemptions as now exist or as may hereafter be created by the laws of these United States or of this state."

On the "original" statement by the OP, do we really need to be re-writing amendments just because the language used then isn't common now?

But if we are going to do this, remember:
Convention allows a full total rewrite of Constitution
Amendment process only allows a yes/no on the exact wording of the proposed amendment as submitted. So if this is going to be done, the amendment process with a wording close to the OPs, would be much safer.

However, I'm going to pull this tangent out: Militias are all "able bodied" citizens. The brain IS a part of the body, and if it is "malfunctioning" (severe enough mental disease/disorder) enough to lead people to seriously question a person's ability to participate in an actual "mobilized" militia, then that IS enough reason to claim that, per the amendment itself, that said individual does NOT possess the inherent right to own and bear arms.

It's only confusing to those who want it to be confusing, The wording is specific to its meaning. That these are God given RIGHTS, not man given which would mean that what man giveth man can take away! All gun discussion could be resolved with requiring gun safety training in schools as it once was, and demanding that anyone who promoted gun control would be the first to be denied the right to own, possess, carry, get a CCW permit, hire or be assigned armed security!

No. It isn't confusing if you do your homework regarding the term "militia". in the 1700s and earlier, the term militia referred ro every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 60 that could supply their own ammunition (i.e. ball & powder) and a functioning firelock, musket, or fusil.

It is a pretty clear statement!! Why should it be changed and open up a brand new can of worms for liberals elites jump on for gun control and confiscation!! Leave the document as it was written!!

ABSOLUTELY NOT
The militia is every able bodied male citizen...and it should stay that way

The problem with this is that it will be another issue to polarize the country around. I believe 2A and 14A need to be updated. Unfortunately, my view of how they need to be updated is not in line with those who are quite vocal about their position. IMHO, we no longer live in a country where we can have opinions and not be verbally abused for having them if someone doesn't agree with us. We also, IMHO, have a government that is too concerned with keeping their jobs rather than doing their jobs so any attempt at changing the Constitution won't get past the idea stage.

What is the confusing part you're talking about? It's pretty plain English and easy to understand.

That's still not unambiguous. What classifies as "arms"? Are there limits that are reasonable? Would RPGs would acceptable arms? What about ammunition? Are there types of ammunition that are acceptable or not? The reason the amendment is there was so that government couldn't suppress the people. Are any amount of personal firearms going to be able to fight off our military?