There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law. George Mason Objections to the Constitution
We the People explicitly said "shall not be infringed". We the People demanded privacy and security in our possessions. We the People demanded our rights of conscience not be violated. We the People placed those limits on ANY government operating in the US.
These are our Rights. A minimal set protected under the "Supreme law of the Land". Take them from us and we'll take back the power you are stealing. By force if necessary.
Here Mason was arguing against those who believed that the bills of rights in each of the states would protect against federal laws that encroached upon rights protected in the state constitutions. Mason was saying that a federal bill of rights was necessary because, for example, a provision in a state constitution that guaranteed the right of the people to free speech would not protect against a federal law that infringed on the right of free speech...because federal law (the law of the general government) is paramount to the constitutions of the states.
No question that many, maybe even most, of the drafters of the Constitution and state legislators believed that there are certain natural rights upon which no government can infringe. But ratification of the Constitution was ultimately a political battle and there is no way that most of the state legislators would have been willing to allow the new federal government to dictate to their state legislatures what the scope of these rights are...and there is no way the Federalists would have risked a revolt against the Constititution during the battle over ratification by suggesting that is what they intended the new government to do.