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

Um...no. The purpose of 2A isn’t home defense or self defense. It’s the preservation of a free state. If people can’t understand 2A, that’s an education problem.

What is confusing about it?

It's not confusing, just the media is trying to muddy it.

THE 2nd Amendment has worked for all there years, I do agree LEAVE IT AS IS....NUFF SAID

The revision of the 2nd amendment isn't necessary. What is necessary are revisiting the existing laws and enforcing them against known felons who illegally possess weapons. Close the loopholes that allow a purchase of weapons without a background check. And, at the same time put state and federal mandatory participation for background checks. Put in the mandatory requirement for mental health too. But for God's sake, punish those who have illegal weapons and use them in a crime. Stop mollycoddling the criminals. In the 1970's California had the death penalty and regularly executed prisoners for their crime. Then in the late 70's, it was abolished. Guess what happened? If you said "Violent crime went up" you are correct. Why? Because the criminal knew (s)he wouldn't be executed. California brought back the death penalty in the early 80's and the rate went down again.

SO, fix what is broken first!

The second amendment has served this country well for 200 plus years. This was put in the Constitution by our founding Fathers for a good reason. LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!

All I can do at this point is read these comments and laugh. My heart has ached for far too long over the hatred and division. So I've decided to just laugh, else I lose all hope in humanity. But what does it matter? I'm just a stupid libtard. A stupid, progressive, far left, LGBTQ loving, pro choice, Trump despising, climate change believing, feminist, GUN OWNING, snowflake. Only person in modern history who has stated the wanted to take anyone's guns away without due process is President Donald J. Trump. I dont know about you, but I'm not fond of the thought of him denying me my Constitutional right. But, it seeks to be his favorite thing to do--take away our rights, little by little, bit by bit.

offered IMHO only: The wording isn't the problem so much as it's the interpretation of the reader.

As the average reader is not likely to actually research the founding fathers and the origins of the wording, nor are they willing to accept the surrounding circumstances, then it means any and all changes to the wording today will come under the exact same interpretive discourse in the future.

no. The whole of the people is militia. that has been established in law so there is no need to change the wording, just educate the ignorant

I'm not sure it would make a huge difference. Look how the first, second, forth, tenth amendment fare. It's words on paper these days regardless of their supposed guarantee.