Not so much change the meaning as to clarify the meaning. The second part refers to "the people" -- not all persons or all citizens.
So who are "the people"? The first part says they are those who form the state Militia.
If the second part read, "The right of all citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", well, we wouldn't even need the first part, would we?
Then you do believe that an amendment protecting the right to own and read books, if it mentioned the importance of a well-educated electorate, would permit the prohibition of books which are not political?
It says so such a thing. Good Lord, that's a stupid comment, even for you.
So you maintain that the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms is not what is protected, but rather a constitutionally narrowed right of the militia to keep and bear arms?
Why didn't the Founders simply establish a right to keep and bear arms for Militias? Why the reference to a pre-existing right of the people? By your reasoning, one implied result of the Second Amendment, by omission, is the power of the federal government to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms EXCEPT for purposes related to Militia service.
Nonsense. All we would hear about from the anti-gunners would be "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" and that our Founders never meant for the people to have arms to challenge the authority of government. But our Founders had just successfully challenged the authority of government and had decided to reduce that authority, such that the government no longer would have the authority to disarm the people.
It is not the "security of the state" which is the purpose of a well-regulated Militia, but "the security of a free State". The latter requires that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed, including that of 85-year-old women.