A popular argument made in favor of the second amendment is that the American colonists defeated the British because they had guns. I've argued against that in the past, partially based on what I've read in this subbreddit in regards to gun ownership not being widespread and the importance of the French in our victory.
I also seem to remember from college that Washington and other generals considered the militia to be much less effective in combat than his trained soldiers. The problem is that I don't have the background in US History that knows if this is a verified fact.
The question remains--were the colonial militia an effective fighting force during the American Revolution? If so, to what degree? If not, did American familiarity with guns make any difference whatsoever in any battle?
This is so highly politicized that it's difficult to find a straight answer on the Internet so I appreciate any assistance that you could provide.
They could be useful when used properly, but were no substitute for the longer serving Continentals.
When used as garrisons and holding forces they could be useful. Or when they were used creatively and the fact that they wouldn't stand for long such as at Cowpens, then they could be useful.
But they also had a tendency to break under a few volleys, and even quicker if bayonets came into question. At places like Long Island, and Brandywine when they were expected to stand up like regular infantry, their lines fled and were routed.
But then you also have the irregular warfare in the South where at King's Mountain two groups of essentially militia went at it with the Colonial force wiping out the Loyalist force.
Many of the drawbacks for militia where that they only served typically in their home states, so in the South for instance, when Greene and Gates before him moved from colony to colony they would have to try to gather new militia companies and units while trying to keep others from going home. They would also be expected to be sent home for harvest and planting even when on campaign. There was also no guarantee that they would be equipped with well maintained or working weapons, or any of the supplies for campaigning with the army, all of which would deplete constantly short and stressed supply systems.
Realistically any existing familiarity with firearms wouldve been negated by unfamiliarity with the stress of battle, clouds of smoke, explosions, death, and confusion take much more to get used to than firing an inaccurate musket.
Washington also had some very bad experiences with militia during his career and his opion has colored to a degree the popular opinion, despite other generals having a much higher degree of success, and militia providing valuable service. Washington however was all about building a larger professional army and as forced to use militia to fill gaps, he was always attempting to get more men for the Continentals.
A good book I would recommend would be:
Patriot Battles: How the War of Independence was Fought by Michael Stephenson.