YOU are the one concocting restrictions. We're arging that the Founding Fathers meant no such restrictions as you keep promoting, and that anyone not a male 17-45 had a right to mundane use of arms as to be so obvious that the Founding Fathers didn't conceive of discussing it. Methinks it never occurred to them that anyone would be so bent as to deny such rights to women & children etc. qua women & children etc.
Funny thing, that. You're so convinced "the people" is narrowly limited that you can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise, and now find yourself arguing against your own hard-fought position.
It's in the DC Circuit's Parker opinion which you obviously didn't even bother to read.
"In sum, the phrase “the right of the people,” when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual. This proposition is true even though “the people” at the time of the founding was not as inclusive a concept as “the people” today. To the extent that non-whites, women, and the propertyless were excluded from the protections afforded to “the people,” ..."
So, if the preamble is as non-specific as you say and the RKBA is also protected for other reasons (like self-defense, competition shooting, and hunting), then why wasn't the right protected for these other groups of persons?
The simplest explanation is that the right was ONLY protected for members of a well regulated state Militia. I expect your explantion to be quite convoluted and not simple at all. If you even have an explanation.