Derek 2.0

They do have "gun rights"........as mentioned previous Governments were obligated to provide firearms (namely Milsurps SMLEs form the previous World Wars) and ammo.....and now that military stocks of .303 British are gone, money for commercial ammo is granted instead.

Waldo, I quoted for you the passage (and provided the actual form) that allows First Nations a "do-over" if they get a reference from a Elder.........that isn't available to other Canadians.............I don't fault past Canadian Governments, as these enshrined Treaty Rights were granted by the Crown (through various Upper Canada Treaties and the Douglas Treaties here in BC) hundreds of years ago when they got placed on reserves.......

It is what it is..........a First Nations youth kills family members and others in his impoverished community with a duck gun, will garner as much attention as the daily killings of young Blacks in your country. Poverty, substance abuse and lack of (mental)healthcare in these communities get little coverage, and in turn, attention.

In all honesty, I doubt this will get anywhere near the same attention of school shootings in the United States or if it had of taken place in school in a major Canadian city.

No it doesn't........that is why it is called an Adaptation From the link:

No need to presume anything

To an extent, but then why go through the legal process if one can by a gun smuggled across the border? Who knows..........I do know the last Trudeau Government in the early 80s supplied numerous First Nations in Northern Quebec and the (then) Eastern NWT (now NT) with Finnish produced Valmets per their Treaty Rights for subsistence hunting.......suitable in the extreme cold you see

I think that would be obvious. To an extent, but dependent on Nation, most have had Treaty Rights granted by the Crown to firearms before there was an RCMP.......or Canada.......jurisdiction is subjective, if one was tempted to take away firearms from the First Nations they'd better use the Army, and be prepared for an Oka like crisis weekly......good luck with that.

Some could/will, regardless of logic..........I of course would point to this: Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptations Regulations (Firearms) Application versus this: Application for a Possession and Acquisition Licence Under the Firearms Act (for Individuals Aged 18 and Over) As an area worthy of further examination, but more so, the third world conditions found on most remote Northern reserves/hamlets.

Of course.........in other media, two of the four victims were the alleged shooters brothers, of which he shot at home......then went to school and shot and killed a young teacher and shot several other students.........

Three things to point out, first Canada's Northern communities have a crime rate upwards to four times greater than the National average. Second, in said Northern communities, there are very few mental health/substance abuse resources made available to the largely First Nations communities, and said communities themselves often resemble the Third World. In La Loche itself, they have four times the National average of suicides. Finally, with regards to our firearms laws (as I've spoken to several times) there are serious, gaping holes associated with the Firearms Act and the issuance of PALs to First Nations. In most cases, an applicant can skirt the various steps afforded to other applicants (Criminal/Mental health checks etc), to meet a right for sustenance hunting, with a letter from band elders. In some instances though, I'm not sure with this Cree Nation, First Nations peoples are given firearms/ammo as per their Treaty Rights by the Government.........

I see, no critical thinking here....... How does ill considered differ from irresponsible? Irresponsible acts, by their very nature, don't have a motive attached. Promises are easy........hence nothing of substance. I don't recall Harper doing a world photo-op tour, followed by a sunny vacation, well our economy was in free fall.

Then why were they not invited to the partners meeting? So, some of Trudeau's pre-election pledges were irresponsible then? Promising to give away money we don't have isn't a substantive policy.

Huh? Trudeau and his cabinet ministers have been quite clear, one day, the Hornets will be brought home........that doesn't translate into doing more. Would you consider saying things, without all the information present to make a logical policy, is irresponsible? Is there a means test to measure a level of success in the $3 billion pledge?It would seem, with our economy diving into the dumpster, said $3 billion would be better spent at home.........I wouldn't call their refugee "policy" a success, its late, over budget and stressing the resources of the Provinces and cities.........

I hope not, the 70s and early 80s in Canada are best forgotten..........but you could be onto something, we've got a Trudeau and a dumpster fire for an economy, now its up to you guys to make America great again.....so Canadians have somewhere to flee to

Did they? I know the United States and French have asked nations to do more, not less, as Trudeau proposes. So Trudeau's promises were irresponsible? What positions? They went to Paris with the Harper Governments promises......

True........a Trump-Trudeau relationship would be quite entertaining though

Fore sure, I'm sure the shine will dim on Sunny Ways once the first budget is tabled, which will leave many outstretched hands.......

Define "responsible way".........we could have given them until the end of November to find alternatives....... I thought the Liberals decided their policy on combating ISIS in late 2014...........they still haven't figured it out? Its not the limit to foreign policy, but should be on the front burner, none the less, their other foreign policies have lacked substance.

Clearly the difference between Chretien and Trudeau is that the former had far more experience in Government (Including PET's cabinet), I fully expect him to continue to make mistakes (all Governments do), the question is how costly said mistakes will be and what negative impact they will have on Canada.

Trudeau very much so owns our currently confused foreign policy........that can't be blamed on Harper.

Without a doubt, hence using the current B-52 service life as political justification for bad public policy is unfounded.........or Chretien using the example of Sea Kings in US service to cover his own backside........... One contrast between Chretien and Trudeau though, is that Trudeau has yet to justify his policies towards combating radical Islam.........he won't even lie to us

Exactly, the Liberals current muddled policy on combating ISIS is merely a reflection of politics, in that they opposed the combat mission when in opposition in hopes of gaining support from NDP backers, and continued on with it through the election..........now they own it and have painted themselves into a corner.

Actually they don't have high hours......the average 737 in any given airline has equal/greater hours then the current B-52 fleet. Furthermore, the "H" was (re)designed for low level flight (Unlike the previous B-52s), but the USAF altered their low level strike doctrine in the later 80s and early 90s to high level stand-off missions, which extended their usage even further........ Their continued use is an example of good public policy, since they can still perform their required missions, and have outlived two of their planned replacements, and will likely outlive the B-1 and possibly the B-2.

Apples to Bananas.........the currently serving B-52H fleet has a cumulative usage of 18000-20000 hours on each aircraft, the average rate of usage of any given aircraft used by an airline for over 10 years...........the limiting factor of the B-52H life will be its wing's leading edges, which a conservative estimate will see them going around ~38000-40000 hours, or 2040-2050, unless replaced........ No, there is a desert full of parts, the limiting factor is metal fatigue.......... Again, a result of politics put before good public policy.......such is the case of the current Government's policy on fighting radical Islam.