Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I despised history in school, even in college.  I now really enjoy it, it's most of my reading.  It's amazing such an interesting subject can be taught so poorly I think, and so errantly in many cases.  I've been surprised how much I was taught that simply is misleading or overly simplified or completely omitted.

Of course, it was common in HS for coaches to be teaching history.

This is largely a fable of mistaught American history.  The major battles in the WoI were fought using British tactics and arms.  The British did have to content with partisans and asymmetric warfare, which is common when one side has overwhelming power.  The British won a lot of battles in the WoI, just not the last one, which is to a large degree due to help from the French.

No it's not,I've read it,saw it on the History Channel/PBS segments. There are paintings/drawings from actual participants of the War that they clearly show the Minute Men recessed in tree lines popping Redcoats in their ridiculous formations out in the open. Of course even those toffee nosed bastards would break and run when they realised they were getting filleted and upstarts weren't folding like before. The Minute Men blended many tactics,remember not  everyone was from England - Count Pulaski,Marquis de Lafayette,Baron Von Stueben - gotta love those names,no wonder they won the fookin' war.Also some guy named Washington was with General Braddock when he got whacked in the French & Indian Wars. No doubt George tooks some notes on concealment/ambush tactics. Colonists weren't daft and going to play by the silly rules laid out by the Aristocratic A-holes that benefitted them and the Hessians pressed into service.

 Evidently the Hessians had no axe to grind, the German princes sold their subjects into the King's service as the soldiers didn't recieve a dime.So it didn't take much coercing for them to bolt allegiance. I can't find the source but evidently part of Washington's command were Pennslvannia Dutch who encouraged the colonials on the Christmas attack at Trenton.As amongst the British types(English,Scottish,Irish,Welsh,Cornish) Christmas was more of a somber/austere occasion at that time.Where as the Tuetonic types (Germans,Swiss,Danish,Austrian) there was more merry making,the Christmas Tree,singing,Schnapps & Suds. They were betting the Gerries maybe sleeping it off - and it was recorded that some may have been.They certainly were surprised none the less. Supposedly Johann Rall a Hessian commander killed at the Battle was concerned about the forward exposed position of the Garrison at Trenton but high command didn't move them. Gosh the higher ups weren't very bright back then either

Fun Fact Cindy on her mother side traces her lineage back to a Hessian named Conrad Auble,who was captured,swore allegiance switched sides and recieved I don't know how many Acres. I heard his name mentioned on a PBS Special.Out of 13,000 Hessians 5,500 stayed and became Americans. Like many soldiers many died of disease/wound infections. The rest either were killed or went back. 

It appeared between the English/French/Irish/Polish/Scots/Africans/Swiss-Germans - Washington recruited rather well.

A Republic - if you can keep it - Ben Franklin

FFS that's one battle. The colonials adjusted after those debacles,You should know this being from the south read about the battle of Cowpens followed up by Kings Mountain - fought in the Carolina's. They had to use the tools at their disposal and Guerilla tactics were one of them. The Colonials showed formation broke fell back as the British were engulfed by unseen forces in the woods and behind hills. If Banastre Tarlton or Patrick Ferguson were here they would tell you are mistaken. Hell at York town they weren't in formation firing at each other behind ramparts.Again men there painted these scenes,I could agree with you then we'd both be wrong.

Hide in their safe spaces?

I've got about 4K rounds at the ready. The eyes are still great at long distances too. Reading... not so much.

It always comes back to making the gun stuff weird. Why does it always do that?

Anyway. The answer to the first question is complicated because it depends the nature of the imaginary conflict. The lines would be extremely unclear if there were a case of arms citizens rising up. But fortunately, this imaginary conflict is very, very likely a fantasy for those who fashion themselves as braves.

-Folks with guns tend to identify strongly with the people they'd be shooting in that scenario. 
-A lot of the folks they'd be shooting identify strongly with them, and might well be forsaking the government they'd likely be representing
-Americans often don't care about constitutional rights, and the two groups above at times aggressively attack them (some are intended as road blocks for our protectors, so that makes sense), so very few folks are gonna stand tall "for the constitution" (they might stand tall for themselves, but tell you it's for the constitution)
-If you did have a case where armed folks were in revolt, it would likely be backing the military in some kind of coup, and those tend to be anti-democratic, a thing we very much don't want. 

The more interesting thing is that despite our cos-play of being super polarized, we are to enough of a degree intermingled, so we're all mostly stuck together. Probably a good thing, even if it irks people. 

I'm not overly concerned about quartering of troops these days.

That's good. I'm also imagining a world in which quartering troops was the thing that pushed folks over the edge. That would be something.

-If you did have a case where armed folks were in revolt, it would likely be backing the military in some kind of coup, and those tend to be anti-democratic, a thing we very much don't want.

Problem is it wouldn't really be anti-democratic as both parties are so far removed from public service that the government once provided. Now both are dripping with guilt for tending to their own tills