"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution ..."
If the BoR did not exist, Congress would STILL have no power to limit speech, take away guns, impose a state religion etc ... because WE NEVER GAVE THEM THE POWER TO DO SO! (stupid commerce clause decisions by the USSC notwithstanding.)
Hamilton was right in his claim that by including a BoR, it would imply that the Congress would otherwise have had the power and that unscrupulous persons would use that implication to extend thier power.
Good point about Hamilton and the other view on the Bill of Rights. That should be brought up more often. For all of the talk about whether the Second Amendment protects an Individual (yes) or a worthless Collective right (no), even w/o it Congress would still have no legitimate authority to ban gun ownership.