Now let us lay some facts on the table

Under article V,  the founders established two methods for future generations to add amendments to the Constitution.

Under method 1: Two-thirds of both houses of Congress can propose an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states ratify it... or not.

Under method 2: Two-thirds (34) of the states call for a federal constitutional convention, and then three-fourths of the states ratify whatever amendments are proposed by the convention.

Notice that ratification by states does not specify state legislatures!  When they see the statement below, in the Handbook and in nearly every piece produced by the advocates of a Con-Con they automatically think state legislators. Like this one:

"Proposing amendments through a convention, as in Congress, is still only a method of proposing amendments. No amendment is effective unless ratified by three-fourths of the states (now 38 of 50)." p9

That is one of the most dangerous lie's-by-omission the promoters are telling state legislators (and the people), who naively believe that they would be able to quash any bad amendment(s), or even a substitute constitution. They would simply refuse to ratify; so no harm can come even if it became uncontrollable.  The truth is:

Article V authorizes Congress to decide on the mode of ratification: either by State Legislatures or by Ratifying Conventions, thus circumventing the legislatures of the states. (In 1933 the 21st Amendment – lifting the prohibition on alcohol – was ratified by conventions.)

U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger, in a letter of June 22, 1983, to Phylis Schlafly, confirms the dangers, stating:

". . . there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress 'for the sole and express purpose'." 

From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9, a compilation of State Supreme Court findings, we read:

"The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1) and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. (2) They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3) and, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4) and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)"

James Madison himself, father of the Constitution, warned against convening a second constitutional convention. When he learned that New York and Virginia were actively calling for an Article V convention in 1788, just months after ratification of the Constitution, he was horrified. He counseled:

"If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress.... It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides … [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts … might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric....

"Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second meeting in the present temper in America." [From a letter by James Madison to G.L. Turberville, November 2, 1788.]

A note of caution: While it does take 34 states to call for a Con-Con, all of them must be for the same purpose.  States with standing calls proposed a "balanced budge amendment". This new tack the promoters are taking doesn't use the same language. They're calling for an amendment forcing Congress to stay within its budget.  Although it sounds different, it is the same purpose: a balanced budget. According to the handbook, any new calls can be aggregated into the former standing calls.

As it stands today, if eleven states make this call the deed will have been done, and we can kiss what is left of the "American Dream" good-bye.