While I agree that a rifle is a practical method of resistance, the will must be there to meet a larger outcome. There will always be more rifles than men. When a rifle is necessary, it will be available, and it's up to the people who handle such things to do so.

The rifle is not the only tool used in a resistance movement. If I was leading a massive insurgency, it would be extremely useful. But for urban resistance operations in neutral territory? Less so.

As for the practicality of different cells? The most important thing, as you say, is to increase the ability of combat cells to operate.

If American soil was seized by a foreign power, that's different. But I don't think we'll be "liberating", but rather "assembling". Instead of holding territory in the WWII sense, we'll be building a covert army capable of causing harm to the enemy.