Bill of Rights vs. Constitution

My questions and curiosity have derived from our discussion of the book by Rakove last week. I know the author has supported his argument with adequate facts and analysis, but I am just trying to get clarification on the Framers' reason to refuse to include a Declaration of Rights. I see the conflict of interest on both sides: Anti-Federalists wanted the Declaration of Rights and Federal Government staunchly held on to the idea of leaving the question of legitimacy of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution aside as long as they could. I can see why Anti-Federalists demanded their rights be declared; they wanted to secure them in writing. Why would they not? Even after the rights have been declared, there is so much obscurity in some of them which allows twists and turns of legality to deprive people from exercising those entitled rights fully even today. Such obstacles and barriers make me think how it would be like if the rights had not been declared through the Amendments to the Constitution.

My next objective goes back to my initial question: what exactly motivated framers to push away the Bill of Rights? Were they afraid that if the rights had been declared explicitly, people would misuse them? What did they mean by declaring some rights in the Constitution and leaving out the others? I think it was a form of diplomacy; one of those tricky techniques of political realm by which rights and privileges can be given and taken in the name of so called legitimacy, timing, situation or the availability of sources needed to implement necessary measures to protect people when they need protection. How do we interpret the framers' refusal to declare people’s rights?