The value in that writing, one would assume, would include your education, culture, and intelligence.

The constitution is intentionally more difficult to amend than an ordinary law. The entire point is that the government cannot easily remove restrictions on itself. It's not an appropriate place to put, say, housing or employment laws, which should be ordinary laws so they can keep up with a complex and rapidly changing world. It's also not an appropriate place to put a statement that housing is important or that there is a right to housing, because such a statement is unenforceable and would need a separate law designed to enforce that right. There are plenty of countries with a "constitutional right to housing" that still have homelessness because it's such a difficult issue to solve.

Throwing a constitution out and starting over would be even more difficult than amending it and would lose what's already in it. Maybe we need an amendment ending prison labor and private prisons. Maybe we need an amendment extending more rights to immigrants. That doesn't mean that the constitution as it already exists is invalid and worthless.

It seems you have an issue with just one part of it, the bill of rights. Besides property---which doesn't just mean land---that part addresses such other "outdated" concepts as speech, assembly, religion, rights of the individual in criminal investigations and trials, and a number of others. What connects all these ideas together is that they are the rights the people have _against_ government action. Things the government should not do to harm people.

That purpose is really important. The constitution is not, and should not be, a list of good policies or social values. Most of it is a list of specific things the government did in the past---some of them truly heinous things---that it is not allowed to do anymore. There's only one notable exception: the 18th amendment, meant to enforce the social values of the time and which was, ya know, repealed later for being a disaster.

This doesn't mean that the shooter doesn't have his own agency and his own responsibility for his actions. It just means that his responsibility for his actions doesn't diminish your responsibility for yours, even if your actions involve him.

It seems to be a common idea that we can just overlook the abuses committed by the other people we deal with, as things "I'm not responsible for", regardless of our actual ability to do something about them. I have no special insight, but I think it's a common idea because it lets us feel better about ourselves while we do nothing. But "feeling good about oneself" isn't a solid way to build or evaluate a moral framework.

The article everyone's commenting on provides numerous examples of things Trump has done, some of which, such as calling for the use of the government against political rivals, are against libertarian ideals. Rather than address any of those directly, you've resorted to handwaving and providing examples of things you personally approve of. That could reasonably be seen as a failure to engage with reality, which would be delusional.

However, I don't know why the specific person you're responding to thinks you're delusional. I am not them.

What matters is this: you can agree that Trump has done good things and still think he's done horrible things as well. A shit sandwich is still a shit sandwich. You shouldn't eat it just because the bread's edible.

What, exactly, do you think a right even is, if not an agreement that something cannot be done to people or cannot be taken away from them?

That is an obviously wrong statement even if we only look at protests within the past 5 years.

Without the right to say something, there is no legal way to organize or to demand any other right.

Edited to remove an unwarranted statement at the beginning of this comment.