Does ignoring part of a constitution render all of it meaningless?

[Bang]

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned” is and has been completely and totally ignored as evidenced by requirements such as LTCF and arrests and incarcerations for failure to comply with laws which do in fact create a form of unconstitutional questioning.

Completely and totally ignored by those who by oath and position are duty-bound to affirm and defend, who over time have built layers and layers of case histories based upon the ignoring of the provision 'shall not be questioned'.

Can a long history of nullification of one section place other sections of the commonwealth's constitution in peril based upon something akin to precedent?

[father-of-five]

(Long breath.....)
It depends on who you talk to. This can be a case of exegesis vs eisegesis...letting the text speak for itself vs. adding to the text through means such as presupposition.

[Walleye Hunter]

Is there a savings and separability clause?