I figured you would say that. The trap you fell into is that economy of scale is about manufacturing, not consumption. If you had to mine one tonne of iron and process it into steel ingot, it would cost you a lot, but the process is globally run on such a vast scale that it is very cheap. But the idea that if you buy a crapload of steel they will give you a special price is silly. Nothing you do is going to affect the global scale of the industry.

things are always cheaper the more you buy

I rather suspect you'll find the cost of 10,000 tonnes of steel ingot will be pretty exactly 10,000 times as much as one tonne of steel ingot.

And the number of charge cycles is directly related to miles, duh.

Er, "average" is "mean". They are synonyms. Perhaps you meant "median" for one of your two income figures?

There is a problem or two with hydrogen fuel cells, which is why everybody who played with the idea before long shelved it, or put it on the back burner "for later", sort of like fusion power.
1) They are phenomenally expensive.
2) They require exacting thermal management.
3) You can't just "turn them on" with a click like an electric motor, or even with a handful of seconds cranking like an internal combustion engine.
4) No practical way to store the fuel.
5) Kids, they don't last forever any more than internal combustion engines or batteries do.

what it will do is add more difficulty and expense to challenging them in court

Nonsense. It doesn't add a single synaptic transaction of difficulty or a single cent of expense to challenging them.

Wrong, GM will use it as a way to bash people into submission. When someone talks about suing and gets noisy enough, GM will send them a very powerful letter explaining to them in the most confusing way possible that they're already agreed to not sue them and that suing them would break this contract which would result in a counter suite from GM.

Go ahead. Try that shit on me. I'm begging you.

Every single article of the Constitution requires common sense to interpret. Of speech the First Amendment says simply "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". It doesn't say the President will not executive-order that nobody can say anything mean. It doesn't even say that States can't infringe on the freedom of speech. It doesn't imply that you can threaten people recklessly with impunity. Hardly anyone even claims it implies you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater when you have no reason to believe there is fire.

Do you really want a Constitution 10,000 or 100,000 pages long? One whose Second Amendment alone has to be constantly reviewed and updated because new devastating chemical and biological agents are developed, or something 1000 times more powerful than a nuclear weapon and weighs only one pound is invented?

Since an "arm" is defined as a "weapon", then you see no limit. The qualifier in "small arms" is there for a reason - because "arms" are unlimited. I don't think you will find much company. Your suggestion that maybe the 2nd Amendment needs to be qualified is well taken, although arguably a guy driving an M1A2 tank with a nuclear demolition charge aboard down the street is not "bearing arms", and a lot of us think it is plain enough that the clear intent is not to allow unlimited weapons in private ownership.

The Constitution is supposed to be interpreted with common sense. If it tried to spell everything out to the nth detail, it would be 100 times its size. It would probably be the size of the tax code or the Affordable Care Act, and nobody who finished reading the 5000th page could possible remember what it said on page 10.

We're on pretty exactly the same page.

Interesting that you phrase that control in the past tense. A two-bit IED kills you just as dead as a million dollar smart weapon. And you don't measure the victor by who suffers the least casualtes. The victor is the one left standing on scene after the fury ends. The one who, in the end, cares more about the outcome and is willing to endure. As such, the best it can possibly end for the US at this point is a draw. The worst is an outright loss.

So I'll tell you what happens when you pit guys with rifles and IEDs against a standing army and air force. A lot of people on both sides are killed and maimed, but eventually the standing army finds something else to do, or in the domestic case gets fed up and goes home, the indigenous people endure, and their aspirations have not been killed. Remember Vietnam?

If the purpose of the Afghanistan conflict was to punish and run off an evil regime supporting the civilized world's enemies, that was accomplished with stunning effectiveness and economy within a year. That was the time we should have declared victory, left a threat that the same devastatioin would be visited again if such an evil regime ever returned, and left the hellhole alone. The remaining 12 years were just dick-yanking - not the guys on the scene; the morons directing US policy. Leave the hubris of nation building entirely to those whose business it is - those who live there.

Much as I agree with your points a, b, and c, actually your oath to support and defend the Constitution would obligate you to honor this amendment, properly enacted, just like any other part of the Constitution. I don't think the oath restricts you after your term of enlistment ends, though. You fall back on the same love of country and countrymen, and if the Constitution were to be so corrupted, then the regime would become the enemy.

To a European, used to being able to walk down the street without being threatened by guns ...

Baaa. Baaa. Get a clue. You are not free from being threatened by guns. Any terrorist or criminal willing to break the law can acquire a gun and threaten you with it. What you are free from is the opportunity for self defense in broadly equal terms, or being helped by other lawful citizens on the scene.

Oh, terrorists can run the US military out of Iraq and Afghanistan with its tail between its legs, but the US' own more numerous citizens could never hope to do the same? Really?

A 30-03 cartridge in a bolt action rifle, or a 38 special in a revolver, kills you just as dead as an AK-47 whether you are surrounded by artillery, tanks, and airplanes or not. Even if the military is all wearing body armor, I bet their faces and limbs are exposed.

I guess we should tell Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other non-state lethal actors they can disband because they can't hope to stand up to, or to tie up the most powerful and well-trained militaries in the world in protracted conflict.