Perhaps, but then by this token, you have no privacy rights. That also is an unenumerated "right."
Besides that, I never implied that driving for personal use had anything to do with the Commerce Clause. Straw-man argument.
Hogwash. Article I, section 8, clause 3 grants to the Congress the power; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes[.]
There is a miles wide gap between what "commerce" meant at the founding and what it means today.
As for your diatribe on Article VI, you forget Barron v. Baltimore, Dred Scott, the 14th amendment and how it was eviscerated by The Slaughterhouse Cases. Since the Court declined to take up Gura's challenge of reinvigorating the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th in the McDonald case, we are stuck with selective incorporation via the 14A "Substantial Due Process" clause.
Ref. "Hogwash" and "Founder's intent", Point taken. Although congress tends to slap taxes on pretty much everything, citing the commerce clause ... so they can regulate it. I'm a big Scalia fan, but still, think stare decisis is often taken too far, and that emphasis on precedence does not prevent reexamination (as I understand the principle). Even more so for legislative (vs. interpretive) rulings.
Ref "diatribe", Overstated? Listed rulings.
I guess a better way to make the point I originally intended is this: I believe our right to defense (with arms) is inalienable and existed prior to enumeration, further that the founders enumerated the right to bear arms specifically because governments tend to infringe upon that right, and finally, that comparing the right to bear arms with other rights, enumerated or not, tends to erode the absolute nature of the founder's intent for interpreting the amendment. Anti 2As promoting registration use the 2A vs. DL analogy all the time.
Semper Fi