What the United States Supreme Court Says

[Virulent]

Then why is the part about the militia in the amendment?

As I said below, it is two statements (grammatically, a 'complex sentence'), on one topic. The Founding Fathers did this frequently. For example, the 7th article of the Bill of Rights states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That is clearly multiple statements in a complex sentence, dealing with a single topic.

... militias are comprised of ... people. Therefore the people are ..."regulated."

I agree with you that Militia is a subgroup of People. I don't follow you from there though. By your rationale, any law which acts upon a subgroup of people also acts upon people in general. Example:

Each House (of government) shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same.

A House of Government is compromised of people. Therefore, people are required to keep a journal of their proceedings, and from time to time publish the same. Yes, that's right, BLOGS ARE MANDATORY!

So people should be allowed to have machine guns, tanks, RPGs, etc. without any training or regulation of who these people are that have them? That is madness to me.

Yes, I do believe that there should be no regulations or requirements, except that which individuals choose to apply to themselves. I call it anarchy though.