Ignorance does not work well for the defenders. The Bill of Rights was a defensive response to the aggressive (treasonously criminal) product of the first Con Con Con Job. People not learning from history are likely to invest in their own enslavement and torturous death. Good Luck with that.

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
1788 Elliot 3:89, 430--36, 439--42
[6 June]

George Mason:
“Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”

Those ignorant of history would not know that George Mason was credited with demanding a Bill of Rights to defend common law principles from those seeking to over-rule the common law.

Those ignorant of history would not know that George Mason attended the Con Con Con Job of 1787.

Those ignorant of history would not know that George Mason would not sign the Dirty Compromise.

Those ignorant of history would not know that the Dirty Compromise was the name attached to the dirty deals done behind closed doors, complete with gag orders, in 1787, so as to hatch the Consolidation Plan, doing so by fraud, doing so against the existing agreement to maintain the Equal Footing Doctrine.

June 17, 1788
George Mason:
“Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.”

This is not news.

If you don’t know this, it is not because it is false.

The ideology you think is true is Nationalism.

Patrick Henry, Monday, June 9, 1788
"A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated."

Nationalism is the opposite of Federalism.

June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
“Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.
“But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national.”

Posting a picture of people standing aside a large copy of The Bill of Rights is a curious dystopian paradox, when the message includes any mention of the Dirty Compromise that the Bill of Rights was intended to stuff back in the bottle, or push the camel’s nose back out of the tent.