This paper addresses the conceptual disarray surrounding militant democracy by introducing a novel two-axes analytical framework based on Procedurality and Regularity. Moving beyond traditional rigid dichotomies and state-centric definitions, the study proposes a comprehensive 3x3 matrix that descriptively typologizes a broad spectrum of state and non-state defensive measures, explicitly setting aside evaluations of their normative appropriateness or practical success. By mapping these mechanisms, the paper examines how defensive measures are triggered, institutionally situated, and embedded within democratic systems. Comparative analyses of Germany, Turkey, and Taiwan illustrate the framework's analytical utility: Germany demonstrates a self-reinforcing institutional architecture; Turkey reveals how militant measures can be co-opted to suppress the very democratic values they purport to protect; and Taiwan's case highlights the conceptual dangers of conflating militant democracy with national security, as well as how historical trauma shapes a polity's structural capacity for democratic defense. Ultimately, this institutionally sensitive approach offers a heuristic tool for evaluating the constitutional paradox of militant democracy—ensuring that the accurate assessment of defensive mechanisms' procedural safeguards and operational frequency can help prevent the defense of the democratic order from inadvertently becoming the instrument of its undoing.