The response I made to your first question about the interpretation was meant to explain where I get my interpretation of "regulate". I've stated that I think they meant "to make regular or uniform" the laws for commerce between the states and between the states and foreign nations. The Federalist Papers is where I get that interpretation. I can't see how prohibiting commerce with a particular country can be considered "regulating" because then I would have to admit that the Feds have the power to prohibit one state from trading with another state. I don't think the states would have signed on to that power. But if there is even a question about how a power is construed, I agree with what Thomas Jefferson said :
When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe & precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.
That's why I offered up an Amendment to address the concerns you had about the sale of certain weapons and weapon components to foreign governments.
OK, done now.