The Interstate Commerce Clause requires neither the allowance nor the prohibition of interstate commerce but empowers Congress to regulate the same. Congress is free not to regulate, free to regulate, free to prohibit or free to require such commerce as it sees fit. Such was the state of the law at the outset before the Bill of Rights and its Second Amendment prohibited "infringement" upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment, having been enacted after the original Constitution, would, under ordinary rules of judicial construction be deemed to modify or overturn any conflicting previous provision to the extent necessary to effectuate the policy of the latter enactment.
Kelo vs. New London had nothing whatever to do with Interstate Commerce but instead with whether eminent domain and "takings" clauses could be employed to the benefit of private developers who want to have gummint seize private property for their purposes on the excuse that tax revenues will be augmented. SCOTUS got it wrong as usual since SCOTUS seems incapable of reading the relevant constitutional provisions.
PaleoPaulie is a pseudoconstitutional ignoramus posing as an authority. If paleoPaulie happens to be right on something (like the proverbial stopped watch being right twice a day), he has no idea of how to effectuate the policies he thinks the constitution stands for. PaleoPaulie is a dangerous moonbat on matters of foreign policy and war and nothing vaguely resembling a conservative on either. PaleoPaulie is living history in the sense that he is living proof of why paleowhateverism died a merciful death on December 8, 1941, when the original paleos (Colonel MacCormack, John Flynn, Charles Lindbergh, et al.) threw in the towel, publicly folded their collective America First tent and publicly recognized that they too were at war with Imperial Japan and then with Germany and Italy in the next few days. Of course, they were patriots unlike the craven modern neo-Chamberlains who love nothing more than sticking their heads in the sand and their derrieres in the air and hoping that wishing the baaaaaaad men to just go away will work as foreign policy. If Houston is the target of an effective terrorist attack, I look forward to paleoPaulie groveling on his knees and doing verbal contortions to escape responsibility on behalf of the paleowimps. Maybe he can join with Nancy the Facelift and hold a joint press conference to tell joint lies in that event.
On a matter far more important that paleoPaulie's McGovernite foreign policy heresies, paleoPaulie's defection from the pro-life ranks on the important bills cited further chips away from the legend of paleoPaulie as a pro-lifer or as a conservative. If he will not even defend the innocent babies, why should any conservative be caught dead or alive voting for him.
Bleat bleat little sheep. Keep on justifying more government power grabs.
A great analysis of the real (and very limited) scope of the Commerce Clause can be found in Clarence Thomas' concurrence in U.S. v. Lopez
As to the 2nd Amendment...or any Amendment...you can never put too much stock in the Amendments because you have to remember the political context of the ratification process. In late 1787 and early 1788, the Federalists were prevailing in every state ratification convention. The Anti-Federalists were seeking ways to reverse the successes of the Federalists and the two key political tactics they used were to (1) call for the second Constitutional Convention where issues they had with the Constitution could be further debated and addressed and (2) to seek to convince those on the fence about whether to ratify the Constitution that it was defective without a Bill of Rights.
The Federalists, who were more far politically skilled than the Anti-Federalists (who, for the most part lacked a stong, skilled political leader) pulled the rug out from under the second Anti-Federalist objection when they agreed to add a Bill of Rights. But, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. So, the federal government could not abridge free speech...or infringe on the people's right to bear arms...or to engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments and it wasn't until the 20th century that activist courts first created the fiction that the 14th Amendment "incorporated" the Bill of Rights against the states