Can you give any example of any commercial activity someone could engage in that could not somehow affect interstate commerce?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is not restrictive the second part,"
I don't want to go off on a second amendment tangent here, but a number of lower federal courts have ruled that it is restrictive.
A number of lower courts have cited the syllabus from U.S. v. Miller. Whether this is a result of judges being lazy or having an agenda I won't say, but a syllabus to a court decision has no legal weight (it generally isn't even written by a judge). In U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court held that the first part of the amendment serves to define the term "Arms" used by the second. The term does not extend to everything that could conceivably be used as a weapon, but rather to those items which would be well-suited for use as arms in a well-functioning citizen army. The Supreme Court held that it was the duty of the defendant to supply evidence of such suitability. Had the government not offered the surviving co-defendant a plea-bargain for time served, he would have been able to present such evidence and thus prevailed.
Can you think of any other court decision in which the government has offered a defendant a plea-bargain after "winning"?
Please read my entire post. I said, "Congress does have the power to regulate the commerce which occurs entirely within the confines of a single state if that commerce has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is regulating.
If your intrastate activity is not substantially affecting some commerce that Congress is currently regulating, you're golden. This would leave out things like your own local radio station, private airport, railroad, things like that.