No it's not straightforward. It's an arbitrary interpretation that draws freely from "what they actually meant" assumptions that have absolutely no ground in the actual words of the law, nor are relevant to present day reality. Like the whole "what a regular soldier would carry" thing that is simply NOT in the amendment. It doesn't talk about common soldiers, it makes no comparisons, it gives no specifications or limitations. YOU made that up, based on something or other, and while you're free to mislabel your personal opinions as "common sense", they most certainly do NOT come from the text of the amendment.
And good job for ignoring the entire article as "having an agenda". Everything has an agenda but I'll tell you the same thing I told Durango when he also ignored it - give me numbers that contradict these. The women myth especially. You can say whatever you want about who is counted in this "danger", but then you need to explain why the difference between states with strict gun laws and those without.
Which we both know you can't. Other than offering some more "sheep" insults.