1. a fundamental right hinges on,

a. any individualist's arbitrary definition of hardware,

b. the legistature's definition of hardware,

c. the Supreme Court's definition of constitutional hardware,

d. commonly accepted values.

2. The Bill of Rights was intended as a check on,

a. fuel prices,

b. Hollywood style home invaders,

c. Muslim terrorists,

d. federal power.

3. The federal government has been checked on U. S. soil by
individualist ownership of guns,

a. too many times to cite,

b. twice,

c. once,

d. never. The feds never lose to a domestic collective with guns.

4. A "well regulated militia"

a. means individualists are free from regulation but become regulated
once they join a militia,

A definition is not arbitrary by definition of "definition"...

But what is this hardware ?

But who gets to do the defining?

Any individualist?

Do you get to redefine a "boat" as a "land vehicle?"

There was a clever Floridian who got out of permits for a floating
dock by registering them as boats but that might not work in every
venue.

Bret Cahill wrote:

There will be a free press when there is a free lunch.

Bret Cahill wrote:

Good image: thousands of citizens shooting at incoming ballistic
missles. And we laughed at natives who fired arrows at the eclipse.

-----------------------------------------------------

But who gets to do the defining?

Any individualist?

Do you get to redefine a "boat" as a "land vehicle?"

There was a clever Floridian who got out of permits for a floating
dock by registering them as boats but that might not work in every
venue.

--------------------------------------------------

Well chosing a definition for a purpose is not arbitrary...

And yes the use of the word "arbitrary" on the internet relates to anything
not supporting a platform or not supporting a network...

(The internet dude is just very simple.)

Now drastically redefining a word or denying the meaning or existance of a
word is...Orwellian. (And Orwellian is defined as techniques of propaganda
similar to those found in the book "1984".)

But to call anything that is disagreed with as "arbitrary"...is to simply
declare something wrong and to pretend that the issue is solved.

--------------------------------------------------

But that dodges the issue:

Why is the group regulated while the individualist is free to keep and
bear suitcase nukes?

Wouldn't it be better to just not have a militia and let the
individualists defend the country as well as their homes and hearths?

-------------------------------------------------------

According to the Constitution the country exists so now
the society exists. The Constitution relates the Commander-in-Chief to the
army but relates the People to the militia.

Doesn't the individualist have a fundamental right to guns, Apache
gunships and ICBMs?

Or are you one of them ICBM grabbers?

Bret Cahill