I understand it perfectly, and this has absolutely nothing to do with Second Amendment, as "being armed" is mentioned as a fact of life, not a necessary condition for any purpose.
So then you're only pretending to be ignorant. Since you are not stupid, it only stands to reason that you hope enough other people are to enact laws that are in clear contravention of the US Constitution.
It's asininity to argue that the same men who wrote about the importance of an armed populace, later went on to write into the supreme law of the land a guarantee of the preservation of that right but that these two events are... coincidental.
Better yet, Madison was proven wrong by Civil War, when Federal government, supported by the North, crushed the South and deprived it of at least two democratically made decisions -- to preserve slavery and to form the Confederacy. And everyone is glad that this happened because one of those decisions was the worst decision made in the whole history of US, and the other was just stupid.
The Federal position is that no state or group of states may secede from the Union without a 2/3 majority, just like the way they got in. This wasn't just "We don't like you leaving, so we're going to make you stay". There was a legitimate and arguable legal foundation for the North's position.
Slavery was of secondary importance to the Union. This is evidenced by the fact that not all of the slave states attempted to leave. And in the slave states that did not rebel, Lincoln didn't free the slaves. Why? Because that was less important. It was later handled with a Constitutional amendment, and that had a 2/3 majority vote. It's economic reality that when slavery exists, it has to expand or it will collapse under its own weight. That's why all the north had to do was prevent any other states from becoming slave states and bide their time.
LK