Tension continues in Capitol Forest - Outdoors: Some worry use of guns a risk to others

imported post

I think people here are not properly analyzed the choices that are available to government, and the alternative choices that are available to private citizens.

Some choices for government (DNR).

1. Ignore the problem until an innocent bystander gets shot.
2. Partially ban recreational shooting.
3. Completely ban recreational shooting.

Some choices available to private citizens.

1. Voluntarily clean up junk left by the idiots.
2. Voluntarily educate the idiots that their actions are socially unacceptable.
3. Voluntarily monitor the areas frequented by the idiots, and identify the idiots for prosecution.

I don't know the exact method of "how" actions by private citizens would be implemented, nor do I know if such efforts would be successful in preempting action by DNR. However, I think focusing on what private citizens can do might preempt DNR and repair the damage done to the image of responsible shooters.

There certainly has to be smarter people than myself on this forum that can come up with some ideas on how private citizens can come up with a solution that would preempt the heavy hand of government.

One thing that I did notice while visiting the area was that cell phone reception is unavailable in much of Capitol Forest, which makes it difficult for private citizens to notify the Sheriff or DNR of reckless shooting, in real time.

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

SANDRAT wrote:

Why not manage it the same as a State Wildlife Refuge? In order to use it , You are Required to have a Hunting License,for non hunters,a Conservation License is mandatory.I am tired of footing the bill for the "Leaf Licking,Tree Spiking,Bunny Huggers" anyway.The idea of being stopped and checked for a License might be a detterent for some would be vandals.

Click to expand...

Yes, because CCWs sure stop thugs from carrying a gun in their waistband; drivers licenses sure stop unlicensed drivers from driving. Let's not advocate any more government than we already have, hmm?

Click to expand...

You're right,bonehead thought on my part,I thought about it after posting it.

imported post

@#$%s that shoot signs give us all a bad name, because it's very identifiable vandalism that is clearly visible.

It's unfortunate that rednecks (term loosely used) are out there in such numbers . . . .

You know that the term "Redneck" is anti-white racist term functionally equivalent to the N-word.


Anytime you would like to back that up I will be happy to meet you.

imported post

Wheelgunner wrote:

@#$%s that shoot signs give us all a bad name, because it's very identifiable vandalism that is clearly visible.

It's unfortunate that rednecks (term loosely used) are out there in such numbers . . . .

You know that the term "Redneck" is anti-white racist term functionally equivalent to the N-word.


Anytime you would like to back that up I will be happy to meet you.

Click to expand...

Wow . . . spoiling for a fight, are you? :?

No, I've never heard such a definition of the term. In fact, the people that questioned my use of it earlier in this thread seemed proud to consider themselves "rednecks," so I doubt that they use your definition either.

imported post

Wheelgunner wrote:

@#$%s that shoot signs give us all a bad name, because it's very identifiable vandalism that is clearly visible.

It's unfortunate that rednecks (term loosely used) are out there in such numbers . . . .

 You know that the term "Redneck" is anti-white racist term functionally equivalent to the N-word.


Anytime you would like to back that up I will be happy to meet you.

Click to expand...