Amendments must first be formally proposed. There are two ways to propose amendments - via Congress or via a convention. Since you don't want a convention, that leaves Congress.
LOL, it’s not that I “don’t want” a convention. In fact, I don’t really care how it comes about. All I’m saying is that it is a simple fact that the US Code and the State Codes apply - by their own definitions - to corporations, officers of corporations, people acting in a corporate capacity, or government employees. That’s it. And obviously, these laws are being applied to people who do not fit those incorporated definitions, and thus they are being wrongfully applied. Further, there is no clear way from any part of the government to identify oneself as non-corporate or refute the presumption of corporate status. And finally, it is also a fact that every single effort of leftists, liberals and RINOS to undermine the freedoms acknowledged by the rights of the original Constitution is done through statutory (corporate) law.
So what’s left? Changing the laws? They’re still statutory laws applying to incorporated subjects. What has to happen is that they have to stop being applied to non-incorporated free people. And so it seems there needs to be a law that blocks that presumption, and requires full declaration of corporate applicability. How is that to be done? Through the amendment process, or through simply passing laws pertaining to these needs at a congressional level.
Other than that, what’s left - a constitutional convention? Yes, technically. The problem with a ConCon, as I understand it, is that it is open to numerous agendas being enacted against each other by all parties, and lacks inherent coherence to a specific goal. Obviously, that can wreak destruction, especially when this particular subject, if enabled at a ConCon, would cancel out the mechanism by which the entirety of the Left’s agenda is wrongfully enacted. So essentially the entire convention would be about this one single thing. Which is fine, but why not then just do an amendment and cut out the ConCon risk of Leftist agenda subversion?
All that being said, yes, technically, if the needed amendment could be safely achieved through a ConCon, then that would do just fine. It just seems that doing it in that way would be unduly difficult and even risky. Because the philosophical descendents of same people who came up with the idea of applying corporate law to free people in the first place, would be at the same ConCon where that technique was being blocked - and I have a feeling they’d fight it with everything they have, whether aboveboard, or through dirty tricks, or lies, or whatever.