Politics is downstream from culture. This is what the left understands. The author is putting forth principles for fighting at the cultural level, not just promoting government policy.
I understand that, but sometimes when you focus on particular trees, you lose sight of the woods.
We see this happening with the First and Second Amendments.
Focusing on specific examples of speech which should be free, such as religious speech or definitions of marriage or genders, only invites a discussion of what speech should be free. All speech should be free! We never should have recognized the term “hate speech”, or conceded that yelling “bomb” in a theatre could be prohibited.
Focusing on specific examples of arms we should be able to keep and bear - or specific reasons that justify keeping and bearing arms - that invites discussion of what types of weapons nobody should need - like “assault weapons” - or what reasons for owning weapons are legitimate - like hunting OK - defending against state tyranny, not OK.
Liberty with conditions or exceptions is not liberty.
I thought the article was trying too hard to specify particular liberties we should defend - but liberty can’t be limited to a list.
Anyway, it was just my humble opinion - your mileage may vary.