If the right of people to keep and read library books shall not be infringed, if follows that libraries are protected. If libraries were prohibited, where would the people exercise their rights?
The amendment was written to protect libraries. If I didn't care about libraries, then I simply would have said, "The right of the people to keep and read any book they want shall not be infringed.
So you care about libraries. That still doesn't mean that your amendment protects them. The prefatory language states that well-stocked libraries have a value, but it does not obligate the government to do ANYTHING to preserve that value that is not required by the operative clause.
Try this one; "A well-educated electorate being necessary to a secure state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed".
By your reading, this amendment would mean that the government need only supply schools and the constraints of the amendment would be satisfied. You recognize that the logical connection is being made, but then you deny that the logical connection is what motivated the writers of the amendment.
If the writers of the Second Amendment believed that prohibiting the government from infringing the right to keep and bear arms of every person capable of responsibly doing so, would contribute to a well-regulated Militia, who are you to say that they were wrong? How did you determine that widespread ownership of arms, independent of militia service, was not the intended behavior that the Founders wished to protect?
Certainly had the Founders only wished to protect Militias, they could have just said so.
Your nonsense about "people" versus "persons" doesn't hold water given the language of the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure ...". You don't claim that the protection from warrantless searches is a "collective right", do you?