[nathanbedford]

So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about three objections:

1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.

2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.

3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.

When you write,

A lawless government will not allow itself to be restrained by any civil means. There is no remedy to hold onto our liberty and stop this tyranny by any civil means.

I thought you fit neatly into category (2) above. If I'm mistaken kindly advise if you think we should try or not?

Do you wish to add a fourth category:

(4) It won't work, even in the does work because it will incur "uncivil" resistance so don't bother even trying?

[eyedigress]

We should NOT do this ATT. The folks that want to conserve our liberty is not in charge.

I don’t know when this may happen. I fear the time is lost.

[INVAR]

Please read carefully.

I never said or implied don’t bother trying. That is what you are reading into it.

There is simply no thought being given to implementing whatever is ratified upon a lawless government that will (as already evidenced) undoubtably ignore, disregard and rule as ‘unConstitutional’ whatever is ratified.

I’m cautioning those who cite Amendment V as a civil recourse against tyranny.

You cannot stop a tyranny via civil means, no matter what laws and amendments we pass. I do not know what is so difficult to understand about that fact of history and human nature.

Lawless tyrants and their corrupt systems must be removed from power before laws limiting a tyrannical government can carry the full force of moral and just law.

If you think those lawless now in power are going to just give up their stranglehold without a bloody conflict, you have no understanding of the reality we now live in.