That's my point Mafia. Even with handgun access, the British citizens would be screwed if the military backed the monarchy. Where as the US has state militias to defend the states should the feds try something like that.

And please, I'm just proposing hypotheticals here. Hardly the same as TMW's calls for revolution and stuff.

You mean like the Civil War? You saw how well independence worked there.

I highly doubt that the state troopers and rednecks with shotguns could do anything against the US Military.

Uhh, Draug, which states currently have active militias?

And we already are a republic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

Check it out. You can't be both a monarchy and a republic. Mafia is correct there.

Also, I'd like to again reiterate that neither OP from either of this threads has explained how this would benefit anyone.

"Where as the US has state militias to defend the states should the feds try something like that." - Sounds an awful lot like TMW to me. Sorry I just don't see it. The US military could steamroll over any state sized militia faster than you could say "totalitarian". That said, I do realize you're talking in hypotheticals whereas TMW actually usually speaks in terms of what is happening/will/should happen. Speaking of which, whatever happened to him anyway? I miss the bigoted, narrow minded, sexually repressed, moralizing little bugger. Without him, there's no one around to be quite so consistently wrong about everything.

Any state with their own NAtional Guard (not to be confusde with the US National Guard). For instance, Kentucky National Guard, Ohio National Guard, etc.

Believe it or not, most states do.

http://www.ngaus.org/content.asp?bid=162

I stand corrected, I wasn't really thinking of State National Guard. However, do you honestly think that they would have any hope against the US Military?

One national guard, yes. But states standing together, while it would result in terrible losses, the losses would be on both sides before the states fell. As I said, it would be the end of the USA. and there is the question of how many of those US Soldiers would be willing to shoot at their homestate counterparts.

and again, this is hypothetical. I just think it is more likely (although highly unlikely) and wouldhave a greater chance of success if the monarchy of the Commonwealth were to decide to take control than if the President decided to toss out the constitution and try it himself, especially as our soldiers (and that includes the generals) are sworn to protect and defend the constitution, not the president.

But again, purely a hypothetical...

Sorry, the "One national guard, yes" was to the previous statement about the amry walking over a states national guard.

"how many of those US Soldiers would be willing to shoot at their homestate counterparts."

This shouldn't be taken into consideration, because you'd have the same issue in the UK if the Queen took over.

I agree it would be more violent, but also consider that our President is also the Commander-in-Chief. He'd be much more likely to have relations with Generals than the Queen in the first place.

The one place I could see real trouble would be if we ever got a President who suddenly let the power go to his head and refused to step down when his time was up. But even then, I think the military would defend the constitution and the office, not the man.

This is an interesting hypothetical, so I will carry it through more. I think before any one head of state could attempt something like this, with even the remotest chance of success, there'd need to be a large portion of the populace who would support it. There would need to be public opinion in favour of a totalitarian rule, something like in V for Vendetta, to give an example. In this instance the military would be the first to fall in line behind the president or the queen. Seeing as this is the case, I'd say it's much more likely in the states, where the president is necessarily someone who is good at swaying public opinion.
Although it is amusing to imagine Her Majesty leading a battalion of tanks and soldiers into battle. = P

It would definitely require a slow process as well. Much like what has been happening already in the US. Slowly take away the citizens rights and convince them it is for their best interest. the good news is, it would take more than a decade to pull it off, so unless a sitting President could manage to circumvent the term limit of the office, it would probably be impossible to do. He would have to start early in his Presidency so that, by the time it came time for him to step down, he'd have the backing to say no and make it stick.

Or have his son take over...

Bush senior was never in it for the power and would have done fine in a second term. He got in and out during Desert shield/Storm. He accomplished the mission and withdrew. Junior, on the other hand, was power-mad and wanted to finish what daddy started, not understanding his father was doing exactly what congress authorized to stabilize the region.

Yeah, I wasn't referring to the Bushes. Bush Sr seemed like a pretty reasonable president.

I'm just saying, you could have a President set everything up and then his son gets elected and *WHAM* no more democracy.

@Draugnar: it would be a lot more effective for a group of authoritarian-minded people to develop enough like-minded candidates, with enough propaganda, to ensure that you don't need to end elections...just spend enough money to make sure they turn out the same way. The business community could contribute by refusing to hire anyone during the term of an unacceptable President on the grounds that "uncertainty" makes them scared to contribute to prosperity until an appropriately "free market" government is put in place. There's no need for guns when you have enough money.

Isn't that what is happening now? I mean, really, what is the difference between the Reps and the Dems?

It is an absurd proposal. It will never happen.

@Mapleleaf - I will try to put this a way you're unemployed lumberjack mind understands... This is hypothetical. that means we know it most likely would never happen, but it is fun to discuss the very very remote possibility and how it could be played out. We do this to stretch our mental muscles so we can mroe fully analyze those situations which *may* happen in the future.

your / not you're
Your tenses are all over the place.
I think that you pulled a mental muscle, when you typed the word "mroe".

americans are gay.

I hope this union never happens just so that I'm not stuck in the same country as a twat like you, mapleleaf.

Invictus +infinity

Get a room, fun-boys.

@ mapleleaf, I am ashamed that a fellow Canadian can be so intolerant and downright rude. Grow up.

Seconded Lando, though it's hardly news that mapleleaf can get like this.

There are still loyalists in Canada who would easily be offended by this thread. Although I understand that this whole topic is in jest it begs the question as to why things cannot be reversed somewhat; i.e.- a Canada/USA merger where it is ruled as a constitutional monarchy - as Canada is presently. I wonder how many Americans would be able to stomach that hypothetical concept. Not many I imagine, it's much easier to imagine Canada as gleefully becoming a republic with our good neighbors to the south. Constitutional monarchies tend to be more stable than republics. If nothing else it keeps the power of the president in check as they cannot be president and head of state at the same time (or in other words - an elected king)

Being a proud Canadian may render me biased but I believe our system of government is much more efficient and accountable. For instance, our Prime Minister holds a seat in the House of Commons, just like every other elected member. The PM faces questions from the opposition and is held accountable, along with his ministers, for the issues of the day.