You have noticed the difference in the time scales we're talking about, I hope. You talk about 50-60 years ago, I talk about perhaps 25 years ago. 50-60 years ago, no one tried to rein in the federal government because it wasn't so onerously controlling society as much as it is now. You state, "It will take time to fix and that may not happen in our lifetimes, if ever." That may be true, but it isn't any reason whatsoever to not try to start the fix now, when the conditions are as good as they've been in a while and are unlikely to get better. And "if ever?" If you believe there's little or no chance of regaining our liberty, then what's the point of even debating the issue? We believe we have the chance, and are willing and able to fight for it. Joe, I do appreciate your thoughts, but I just can't agree with your negativity. We may fail, but at least we will have tried rather than given up.
You will have taken the short path looking for instantaneous gratification, not the one which builds for enduring success. There are those of us, called "Conservatives" who have been trying to fix the problem for a long time, who decried the "New Deal" and who go back (philosophically) much farther than that. People who have been harbingers of Federal Overreach at times when relatively few felt the bite or the sting, and those few ignored the warnings that eventually they too would feel it.
Even these words did not awaken the well distracted and prospering masses:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me
Because people said "I'm not a Socialist" (and the Socialists were the ones pushing for this, anyway). Or "Oh, that was there. That could never happen here."
Or "Communism is dead". and ignored the threat, that was indicated in principle, even to the extent that the 70s were marked by "Don't get involved!", the whole time subversion of our Constitution was a rollicking business.
I'm sorry to say this, but you will fail beyond your wildest dreams because you grossly overestimate the people out there who really want a return to the principles of a document and government system they have not known in their lifetimes. The hordes who aren't yet directly dependent are feeding at the trough, be it Federal, be it Federally funded State Projects, be it a completely unearned check in the mailbox and State administered Federally funded benefits never paid for by the sweat of their brow.
I would love to be wrong, and if I am I will eat crow and dine on the bird gracefully, but as I have indicated, the process will be hijacked.
I have indicated who will hijack the process (the GOPe, with 'bipartisan' help), how they will hijack the process (infiltration as delegates), and why (to retain the status quo, which is beneficial to them at Federal and State levels--and I have indicated why that is the case), and why they will have the support of the GOP and much of the electorate, who directly or indirectly perceive they benefit from the status quo).
Proceed if you must, but I would be remiss if I did not point out that peril.
No amount of wishful thinking or personal anger at the way the system is perverted will change that fact unless it is far more widespread than the people elected to office by their respective districts indicate by their very presence in the system, which takes support from the Donors, the Party, the local kingmakers, and ultimately the voters.
The electorate is satisfied enough with the status quo that they continue to support it by continuing to support the candidates who vote for it or fail to vote against it, and have spurned far more principled persons for ones who are long on promises and promise "winning" despite obviously questionable veracity and adherence to any principles.
When they are done, the very system you seek to prevent, the very things which are unconstitutional now which you want stopped will no longer be unconstitutional, because the Amendments proffered and eventually ratified will make that Federal overreach not just Constitutionally authorized, but Constitutionally mandated.
That is the peril of moving too soon. Conservatives are beginning to use the internet and social media to the extent the Statists have, but that is just getting going, we are just recognizing the power of that media to get ideas out there, to fight the lies, as long as we do not permit ourselves to be shouted down.
You speak of urgency for an Article V convention, as if the climate was best, but the problems of an over reaching Federal Government are nearly 200 years old, and while those have advanced in stages, notably in the 1860s, the 1910s, in the 1930s, the 1960s and 70s, and especially the Clinton and Obama years, at no time was this considered so urgent that an Article V Convention was called before.