>The Contitution, the Bill of Rights in particular, protects minority rights...

You are jumping to the consequences of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights in particular, protecting individual rights.

Because the Constitution, the Bill of Rights in particular, protects individual rights, minority rights are protected.

> constitutional provisions aren't necessary when the lawmakers are on your side.

Except when the lawmakers are in the minority (and you being in the majority), the majority still needs protections. Since its the individuals, not minorities that are protected, the rights of the [individuals in the] majority are also protected.

You're confusing the logical consequence with the historical reality.

The historical reality is that the rights enumerated in the amendments were designed specifically to protect minorities.

Yes, "individual rights are minority rights" implies "minotiries get rights". But if the primary purpose was individual rather than minority rights, then why in god's name aren't other more obvious individual rights (e.g., right not to be raped) enumerated as constitutional amendments? The answer is because the legislature can and will do that anyways.

Because with rape there is an obvious harm and injury incurred upon another. In suppressing speech or taking away arms, what is the explicit injury inflicted? What injury is inflicted in allowing government agents to enter your house whenever they want vs burglars? Because the protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights are difficult to argue that injuries and harm have been inflicted. The answer is because there is/was a legal framework that existed to deal with bona fide injuries and harm inflicted.