Perhaps you'd like to refine your Maxim a bit upon consideration of the fall of the Soviet Empire which changed the system radically, although not perfectly and not permanently, without bloody conflict. One might also consider the devolution of the Soviet satellite states at the time.
The recent election in Scotland might well of gone the other way and there is no reason to anticipate that violence would've occurred for Britain to hold on to Scotland. One might recall that the British relinquished India without much bloodshed, the bloodshed mostly occurring between Muslims and Hindus. Bloodshed is not always inevitable. One need only consider the wholesale relinquishment of colonies in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s which was done often without violence to question whether violence is inevitable upon changes of power and government. I submit violence is even less likely when the change is associated with reform rather than revolution, when the reformers of a "soft" rather than a" harsh" tyranny.
So my point is, what is your point? Yes there may or may not be resistance and violence if the Article V movement is successful. Therefore?
Violence is always a possibility and I do not concede that it is inevitable in the wake of Article V. Nor do I believe that the possibility, even the inevitability, of violence should deter efforts to reform. Indeed, the absence of reform might well lead to violence.
I ask again, where do you stand on Article V?
Perhaps you'd like to refine your Maxim a bit upon consideration of the fall of the Soviet Empire which changed the system radically, although not perfectly and not permanently, without bloody conflict. One might also consider the devolution of the Soviet satellite states at the time. Apples and bowling balls. With respect, I do not think you understand the nature of what is in power now in the country and the mindset and ideology of those in the highest offices in the land.
We're not dealing with civil servants that have as principle, the maintenance of a civil society. Rather, as evidenced, we are dealing with ideologues who have as an objective; the TEARING DOWN of the civil society. How can you hope such people will allow themselves to be limited in a civil manner when they control the courts and the system they have corrupted for themselves?
We're now being ruled by an ideology that sees itself as a tool of revolution and fundamental transformation. History teaches that such ideologies are responsible for atrocity and genocide in establishing themselves as the sole authority over those they subjugate.
A meddlesome tyranny for the good of the people is often the most widely accepted and often the most brutal.
Our liberties will have to be fought for if we wish to retain what is left of them and the ideology working to strip them from us, will use violence either directly or by proxy to prevent us from succeeding.
So my point is, what is your point?
We are not going to slow, stop or reverse what is happening to us via civil means. If we hang our hats on the false belief that amending the Constitution will achieve what we seek in a civil manner, we are ignorant of the power we are attempting to restrain and put a yoke back upon.
I ask again, where do you stand on Article V?
DO IT, with the full expectation that the restraints the states will pass are going to be resisted, ignored and struck down by a lawless government oligarchy if the process itself is not corrupted, usurped and thwarted.
Perhaps it will be the final evidence that wakes up enough people that we have no civil recourse left to us.
Article V should happen, perhaps with the public explanation that these Amendments will be implemented by force if necessary - and perhaps that threat might dissuade some in power from doing what I think they intend to do anyway.