General Discussion

Both are discussing protections from a potential tyranny of the Federal Government, in possession of a Federal army. Not specifically about citizens in general protecting themselves from their governments in general.

In my opinion, the closest you can possibly get to that argument is where Madison says:

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

He then extends the argument by saying the American system of a freely armed citizenry, and State Government-organized militias, which are collectively bigger than any federal army would (presumably) be, would preclude tyranny by the federal government. It's a FEDERALIST argument, not an ANARCHIST argument.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

He makes no similar argument about local governments, which would be the obvious thing to do if he were claiming that armed citizens in general is a good way to prevent governments from becoming tyrannical.