Few people realize this, but the only reason we have any Bill of Rights at all is because of a compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists to get the Constitution ratified. The Federalists wanted a stronger government to replace the weak Articles of Confederation but the Anti-Federalists feared giving government too much power.
The Federalists feared a Bill of Rights because to them, the people obviously already had ALL the rights not placed under the specific jurisdiction of the government. To identify certain rights might mean an implicit acknowledgement that the government had authority to regulate any right not specifically identified. Hamilton said it better than I can in Federalist No. 84 :
"...bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
The Second Amendment was added (based largely on existing state constitutions) and the BOR attached to the Constitution under this climate because although everyone "knew" that the people retained all rights and powers not specifically delegated to Congress or the states, the Anti-Federalists felt it very necessary to go further in identifying certain rights which were even more important.
Make what you will of that.
The Federalists feared a Bill of Rights because to them, the people obviously already had ALL the rights not placed under the specific jurisdiction of the government. To identify certain rights might mean an implicit acknowledgement that the government had authority to regulate any right not specifically identified. Hamilton said it better than I can in Federalist No. 84 :
"...bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
The Second Amendment was added (based largely on existing state constitutions) and the BOR attached to the Constitution under this climate because although everyone "knew" that the people retained all rights and powers not specifically delegated to Congress or the states, the Anti-Federalists felt it very necessary to go further in identifying certain rights which were even more important.
Make what you will of that.