Originally Posted by dteowner
So then, what you're saying is that the only system that has any chance of working properly is one with a constitution centered around protecting the rights of the citizenry from the inevitable oppressive government. Something like a Bill of Rights might suit, yes? So then, why are you so quick to tear up the 2nd Amendment, when you, yourself, claim that the Bill of Rights is the paper-thin wall defending us from tyranny? Sounds to me like you're a subversive element for the government, quietly chipping away at the very freedom you claim to protect.

Because the power of a such constitution isn't rooted in it's content, but it's recognition.
Rights rely on the recognition of most individuals within a population that their personal rights comes from supporting their neighbors rights. Challenging a right is thus challenging your own rights. Since the power comes from a collective insight that adapts to new ideas and discoveries, the constitution adapt over time. One such notion is that a war-zone is less free than no war-zone and that paranoia is a delusion.

Anyhow, it's due to the recognition in most individuals that a constitution with individualistic rights is to be preferred for their own sake, that a constitutional democracy lacks the problems a "democracy" have that do not have human rights in it's constitution.