This isn't about their ability to seize things you have after they get a warrant. It's that they want the ability to seize things you have before they get a warrant, just in case they get one later.
It's like requiring everyone to have video cameras in their house with recordings sent to law enforcement no matter whether they're under suspicion or not, and then claiming that it's fine because they pinky swear not to look at them without a warrant. (Never mind that then you can't prove that they're not cheating, and that it would be the world's largest target for organized crime and foreign powers.)
I agree that their analogy isn’t particularly strong, so I removed that part from my comment.
That requires following due process, the presumption of innocence, and observing the right to privacy. You have to convince a judge, in the context of the existing laws, that a certain individual or group are suspicious enough to call for (specific) further investigation.
Mass surveillance and forcing weak encryption bypass or overturn all that. It's a radically different view when you assume everybody is guilty of something by default and that they have no right to privacy.
To be accurate though that's not exactly true. The sheriff doesn't even need a key to enter your house, he can get a warrant and bust your door down.
This is a town where your house is indestructible and un-enterable without a key.