I have a better way to comprehend democracy. Hold firmly in mind a picture of Socraties being forced to drink hemlock, and his star student being hedgehogged with spears. Contrary to your contention, democracy is, indeed, by definition, a way to make laws, and constitututional limitations granting individuals rights-claims against this process putting them before a jury and subsequently in jail, are our best hope of restraining this process from devolving into out and out thuggery by those in the majority.
Remember that only a society with a government whose authority to use force is the same as that held by the individuals it governs, may rightly be called a democracy.
More of the same confusion. Democracy is not a synonym for rights. It is an antonym. It is from democracy that rights most urgently need defending. And, at any rate, states usurp the right of individuals to press their claims of justice against others through coercive means, and for good reasons. We call the alternative anarchy. Perhaps you are arguing source-of-rights, rather than about our present state of affairs?
Those who recognize that the action of individuals acting in concert as a government are subject to the same moral yardstick as the action of those individuals acting alone.
Individuals have no rights to hang traitors. States do, and should.
Those who believe that “every individual, in the peaceful pursuit of personal fulfilment, has an absolute right to his or her own life, liberty and property.”
In the face of a SARS epidemic? In the face of a flood in your community, where you own the only boat that can take your neighbor's to safety? In the face of an invasion of our country requiring the conscription of able bodied men? In the face of your ownership, by some incredible stroke of luck, of virtually all property in the country?
Just because a document, no matter how revered, says you have "inalienable" rights, doesn't make it literally possible. This is magical thinking.