[vincentfreeman]

You are correct. I should stop using the word "reasonable" because it is confusing.

To me, a reasonable regulation of a fundamental right is a law which passes a strict scutiny test. A reasonable regulation of a non-fundamental right is a law which passes a rational basis review.

[Question_Assumptions]

What I mean is that there shouldn't be a modern standing army if you follow the intent of the Founders, which was opposed to a standing army (the Virginia Declaration of Rights from 1776 reads ("That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."). I do not personally think it's practical in the modern world to not have a standing army.