"If we explore the potential of a Constitutional Convention called by the state legislatures in this session of the Idaho Legislature, I will keep your views in mind. However, this is a complex issue that will likely not be undertaken in the current session." Am going to contact him again.
To the Con-Con naysayers and "runaway convention" people, Publius's comment bears repeating:
"Implicitly forbidden:
"Throwing out the Constitution of 1787 and replacing it with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments."
Georgia first. Who's next? Contact your state representative and senator with the link above.
We have Just Begun to Fight!
Which is little different than the Convention called by Congress on February 21, 1787 (obviously not an art. V convention as that did not yet exist) which specified that states were to choose delegates for the “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. Those delegates threw out the Articles of Confederation.
Being dismissive of risks does not mitigate them nor strengthen your position, it demonstrates that being desirous of particular ends may blind some to those risks.