That is the relevant dictionary definition only for your argument, not for mine  There are several others:

b.  The act of exercising the will.

4.  Deliberate intention or wish: Let it be known that I took this course of action against my will.

5.  Free discretion; inclination or pleasure: wandered about, guided only by will.

4.  To resolve with a forceful will; to determine.

1.  To exercise the will.

They will do nicely.

No.  That's why I used the word "Capacity". Choosing and willing are two different things. They are related, but not the same thing. I can "Choose" to bench press 500 pounds all day long. But unless I have the "Capacity", my choice is in vain. 

Which is why I didn't make that statement

Why not? This just seems like a non-sequitur to me. How does "Having Reasons" = "No Freedom"? OF COURSE we choose for reasons. Why else would we choose? But saying that "having reasons" violates "freedom" is like saying "having reasons" violates "cupcakes". Yet I still have a reason for liking them. It doesn't mean they are no longer cupcakes; neither does having a reason to make a free choice mean there is no such thing as a free choice.

Like I said, they are related - perhaps in an analogous fashion to choosing to flex your muscles. The choosing is not the flexing. Choice usually is an antecedent to Will - but not always. We can simply WILL something with no choice involved. It is like choice - but more than choice. Choosing is a decision, a mental process. Will is action.  We have this capacity - not choice, capacity - the capacity To Will. Imagine two climbers: Climber 1: I choose to climb this peak. Climber 2: I WILL climb this peak! Number two is not only a stronger statement, but a stronger reality: He is not merely *choosing* to climb the peak; he is willing the reality into existence ahead of time. In this case, he is not choosing to will - he is simply willing: "To resolve with a forceful will, to determine, to exercise the will". Choice is related to willing; it is not congruent with willing (which is why we have two words, not one).

Disregarding quantum randomness for now (which, as you correctly note, would not be a choice at all), the core of your reasoning is that if we choose "for a reason", then the choice is not free. The fallacy is that this presupposes we could choose "without a reason". "Choosing for no reason" is a nonsense statement, like asserting the existence of a square circle.

Having a reason is as intrinsic to the very nature of choice as having 3 sides is to the nature of the triangle. You have setup a false alternative: Choosing for a reason vs choosing without a reason; this is like saying we fall due to gravity or we fall due to an absence of gravity.

Since "having a reason" is fundamentally part of "choice", you can logically state that:

(The Choice) = (The Choice) + (The Reason for The Choice). 

C = C+R

Since R is intrinsic to C (there is no C without R), they are logically the same statements. 

What you are essentially arguing is that

1. If we (C+R), then (C) is not free 

which is logically the same as

2. If We choose, the choice is not free (or, [if C, then C], since you are *by definition* removing freedom from choice)

Which is logically the same as

3. There is no free choice 

That is not an argument; it is a statement.

4. Ergo, since there is no free choice, therefore, no free will

A conclusion based on a statement.

Goodnight, people