Correct. And in my opinion, if challenged, would not stand given the decision in Morrison.
"It is that substantial effects reasoning which has led to acts such as the gun free school zones act, and that is what we need to revisit."
And before that, the reasoning used to be "direct" and "indirect". We're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
The problem is Congress -- not the Commerce Clause, not the substantial effects test, not the Necessary and Proper Clause. Every two years we elect those who write the laws. It's time for the voter to take responsibility, rather than hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will continue to rein in Congress.
"Nothing in the 2nd amendment says that ONLY the organized militia have the right to bear arms."
Correct. However, the second amendment protects the right only of "the people" in a "well regulated" Militia. Or so the majority of federal courts have ruled.
"Where is your evidence that the Founders intended for Congress to have the power to disarm the unorganized militia?"
Where is your evidence that I ever thought that was the Founder's intent? I have no idea where Congress would get this kind of power.
"Did they ever talk about limiting the people to pointed sticks?"
Not a Monty Python fan. I apologize and retract my attempt at humor.
As for your quotes. I have no doubt the Founders believed in an individual right to keep and bear arms. But that's a right protected by state constitutions, and that's where we need to focus our efforts.