text: On the Convention of States or other proposals for altering our Constitution.My conclusion first: Unacceptably dangerous, and unnecessary.Reasons, first, claims made that the subject-matter of a Convention could be safely limited, are nonsense. The only other Convention we have we ever had was convened to recommend amendments to the Articles of Confederation. It threw the whole document out and wrote a new one.Second, once it is realized that the subject matter cannot be limited, who spends to most money in politics? Who works the hardest and most effectively at packing meetings, raising crowds, finagling processes? Not us.Third, or those who say the process is safe because of the requirement that 3/4 of the States ratify any result...first, should we have confidence in ANY counting/oversight process these days? Second, these State ratifications may be by the legislatures of the states....Do we trust them to be immune to Soros money, to fear of loss of federal pork? Ratification may also be by "conventions". Who decides how those are constituted? Do you want to trust your rights to the "community organizers..like Obama?LAST....the THING WE HAVE NEVER TRIED. ENFORCE our existing Constitution, the envy of the world. Our Constitution itself prescribes HOW We-the-People must enforce it. We CAN do this, but not by sitting around waiting for somebody else to fix it, and not by getting ready to shoot if we are shot at. Each one of us on this board can start the process, peacefully and lawfully in her or his own community. Look at the Tactical Civics Information page, or PM me or e-mail me at securetheserights@protonmail.com