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

Leave it alone. Our founding fathers knew first hand about tyranny. We should be discussing what the Progressive Left objectives are and expose them for what they are to our millenniums.

Fair question MSgt, but the better question I think is, what will happen if we do? 2nd amendment has been a long, ambiguous and touchy subject, but the fact of the matter is that if arms become illegal to the civilans we sign up to protect, we are going to have to put in a lot more effort to protect them. Only criminals would have weapons, and civilians would be defenseless against that. Not to mention all the money that we would drain out on trying to enforce such a change.

No. The SCOTUS has already decided the definition and meaning of the 2nd in the Helper v. Washington DC case. What we need is legislation to further protect the people practicing the right. I haven't seen any other right regulated as much as the second is, and further regulation needs to cease.

The question adduces a fact not in evidence. Having studied American History, I find nothing confusing about the first phrase. I've been a life member of the NRA since 1960. This may be my problem.

300,000,000 guns in civilian hands.

The "well regulated militia" is the legal underpinning of each state's national guard. I don't think that you are suggesting that states give up their national guard units, or are you?

Confusion on the language used comes from those who take the amendment out of the cultural and historical context as well as the textual context of the amendment. Those seeking to control others attempt to rewrite the definitions. The right is for every man, male or female, and is unconditional, only the use of arms is conditional.

No. This amendment is clear enough. So the words were 18th century in their way, but any amendment to this amendment would be longer in legalize, which can lead to long drawn out court proceedings over the words used. Meanings would take longer to interpet in years, than the Constitution was to be ratified. Let sleeping dogs lie, amending the 2nd could lead to amending the whole Bill of Rights.

Absolutely not. Leave it alone. Changing even one simple word will only open doors for any kind of change that someone doesn't like. We are already under heavy fire from within. I always thought, if America ever came under heavy attack, it would come from some foreign country. I would have never dreamed of coming under attack from my fellow American. So sad. I'm keeping my guns. PERIOD.

I think if Congress touches the 2nd amendment they will take away our given rights to carry firearms. I believe it takes a 2/3 vote of The House of Representatives and 2/3 of Congress to pass or amend an amendment, unfortunately 2/3 of Congress can't agree on the time of day or what day of the week it is. I say leave it alone, the supreme court is swinging conservative and the court will uphold the 2nd Amendment. All Amendment are a little outdated but the spirit of the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) was to limit the power of the Federal Government and to give citizens certain rights I say leave it as is.