Would you argue that taxpayers should have an absolute right to use anything and everything funded with tax money?
Yes, apart from your rhetorical trick of using the word "absolute." That's a cheap ploy.
Should hunting and fishing be unlicensed and unregulated because game managment is funded in part by taxpayers? No. Hunting and fishing make use of shared resources and are necessarily a licensed priviledge so that the resource can be used efficiently and safely.
Actually, hunting and fishing licenses are taxes to shift the costs of hunting and fishing specifically, to hunters and fishermen. Our DFG does a lot that does not support hunting or fishing directly, so I have no problem with either requiring licenses that charge those who use resources in a certain way for their use, or for general tax funding of DFG activities and personnel, nature preserves, pollution control, etc. that are not only there for hunters or fishermen. We all get to enjoy the "use" of DFG in California, if we benefit from having unpolluted waterways, controlled vermin infestations, etc.
Should boating on a reservoir created with tax dollars be unlicensed and unregulated because the dam and ungoing maintenance were funded with tax dollars?
We don't need licenses to use boats here, and no one said that the use of a shared resource can or should be unregulated. You've tried to turn a brief statement about the right to use something that you've been forced to pay for into a statement that such use can occur with no regulation whatsoever. These are entirely different points.
Should citizens have a right to take tanks and war planes out for a spin because they paid for them with tax dollars?
In the way that you say it, no, but there's a damn good argument for more of a trained citizen militia force rather than simply an enormous bureaucracy that often operates with little scrutiny at great expense to the taxpayer.
Paying for a publicly shared resource does not imply a right to use that resource.
Then what justification in the world can you use for forcing anyone to pay taxes?
"Using" the military, for example, means living under its protection. Regardless of military boondoggles, defense contractor kickbacks, etc., that sort of "use" has no relation to the "use" of a tax-funded, public road, which is simply the use of the public road.
;
The only regulation should be you can't go out and shoot someone without a damn good reason, plain and simple. This also goes with the thinking that if you are a violent enough felon you can't be trusted with a gun you shouldn't be on the streets anyway.