joeschmoe:
"You like to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we should ignore and which to support?"
Not ignore perhaps, but deprecate. So, for example the so-called commerce and elastic clauses have been grossly misused. It would have been better if the elastic clause hadn't been written, and the commerce clause clarified to mean that state governments could not interfere with interstate commerce - i.e. the original free trade zone.
As the case with these other clauses, so-called 'intellectual property' has become a bad joke. First, there is no such thing as 'intellectual property'. There are copyrights. There are patents. There are trade secrets. There are trademarks.
None of them are 'property' in the conventional sense. All of them are granted at congressional whim. Thus they have become part of the gucci gulch playground.
They are also not 'rights'. A right to defend oneself is a proposition of natural law. A right to not have others tell funny jokes that they heard me tell is something different.
So, yes there are many parts of the constitution one can disagree with. Indeed second amendment critics are entitled to seek its' repeal - as the more honest ones do.
Try the Electronic Freedom Foundation for some interesting discussions.
https://www.eff.org/
That's probably enough for something that is diverging from firearms.