2nd Amendment is probably the check and balance with the least potential efficacy these days -- pro-gun supporters who tout right to bear arms to protect against government tyranny are living a fantasy. Realistically there is 0 chance an armed citizenry rising against the establishment would pose any threat to them -- the cards (and methods of control) are stacked wildly in their favor.
Realistically there is 0 chance an armed citizenry rising against the establishment would pose any threat to them -- the cards (and methods of control) are stacked wildly in their favor.
I think that is true only if you make certain assumptions - assumptions which I consider unfounded.
For example, if an armed revolution broke out, are we assuming that no military units would defect and join the rebellion? If so, I'd consider that questionable.
Also, are we assuming that the rebels are armed only with pistols, shotguns and semiautomatic rifles? No way... first, factor in IEDs and homemade weapons, and then factor in the likely capture of at least some military grade weaponry, and/or ilicit supply of those weapons to the rebels.
Nukes aren't even part of this equation, so no point bringing that up at all.
The thing I'd worry most about in a rebellion scenario, is the air superiority of the standing military. But if we're talking guerrilla warfare... well, it's hard to bomb an enemy when you don't know where they are.
Finally, consider sheer numbers: I forget the numbers now from last time I looked this up, but the number of members of the standing US military is fairly small relative to the population of the US. And there are a LOT of guns out there. And as somebody (possibly Stalin) once said "quantity has a quality all it's own". Get enough Americans to participate, and you'd have a chance.
Anyway... not to suggest that it's a given, nor do I hope this scenario ever unfolds. Just food for thought.
Well, there's one check / balance aspect that is still "in play" at least in theory: the 2nd Amendment.