Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Modern problems require not so modern solutions. If Sikhs in the UK get to carry around a foot-long knife, why not allow native British citizens to carry around 100-year-old battle rifles? Call it a culturally significant ancestor vibe! What do you guys think?

AmericaPapaBear's profile picture

AmericanPapaBear™

592,348 subscribers

152,236 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

ComedyNews & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

There are growing calls for British men to be allowed to carry Enfield rifles as culturally significant symbols in response to Sikh kirpans. “If Sikhs can carry around a knife because it’s ‘culturally significant,’ then British men should be allowed to carry an Enfield rifle.”
1:04

There are growing calls for British men to be allowed to carry Enfield rifles as culturally significant symbols in response to Sikh kirpans. “If Sikhs can carry around a knife because it’s ‘culturally significant,’ then British men should be allowed to carry an Enfield rifle.”

Right Angle News Network

981,774 views • 3 months ago

What will happen in this state in 2027. The LG election is not a general election. Do you think we will allow you to carry the results sheet to the government house and then announce it without scores? Would allow you In general elections? It is not going to be possible.- Wike
1:07

What will happen in this state in 2027. The LG election is not a general election. Do you think we will allow you to carry the results sheet to the government house and then announce it without scores? Would allow you In general elections? It is not going to be possible.- Wike

Imran Muhammad

89,951 views • 1 year ago

🇬🇧 HUGE KNIFE: This Sikh bro explains why they can carry such a big deadly knife around at all times. -> His explanation is valid for every person, so why can only Sikhs carry it? “It’s for protection of you, your mother …” Yeah, no shit … I am also peaceful and want to protect my mum. Give me a sword too now. 1/
1:09

🇬🇧 HUGE KNIFE: This Sikh bro explains why they can carry such a big deadly knife around at all times. -> His explanation is valid for every person, so why can only Sikhs carry it? “It’s for protection of you, your mother …” Yeah, no shit … I am also peaceful and want to protect my mum. Give me a sword too now. 1/

Lord Bebo

1,146,004 views • 3 months ago

Saying racist words is officially worse than murder in the UK. A Sikh stabbed an 18 year old with a ceremonial sword for "insulting his turban", and police arrested the victim as he bled to death. Sikh's get a special exemption by the UK government to carry around swords for religious reasons. But Tommy Robinson will tell you it's ok if Sikh's replace British people, because his zionist handlers will not allow ethno nationalism, and must redirect anti immigrant sentiment towards their enemies.
0:24

Saying racist words is officially worse than murder in the UK. A Sikh stabbed an 18 year old with a ceremonial sword for "insulting his turban", and police arrested the victim as he bled to death. Sikh's get a special exemption by the UK government to carry around swords for religious reasons. But Tommy Robinson will tell you it's ok if Sikh's replace British people, because his zionist handlers will not allow ethno nationalism, and must redirect anti immigrant sentiment towards their enemies.

Syrian Girl

68,887 views • 3 months ago

Modern problems require modern (and slightly terrifying) solutions. These students in Baghdad really tried to "rebrand" their school on Google Maps as the US Embassy just to get it bombed and shut down. Talk about extreme measures for a day off! #IranWar‌ #Iran
2:18

Modern problems require modern (and slightly terrifying) solutions. These students in Baghdad really tried to "rebrand" their school on Google Maps as the US Embassy just to get it bombed and shut down. Talk about extreme measures for a day off! #IranWar‌ #Iran

Soran Hamarash

21,414 views • 6 months ago

‘No special rules for Sikhs, no matter what your religion is, you should not be allowed to carry a knife in public in this country.’ Alex Armstrong says he is ‘completely intolerant’ of anyone carrying a knife or weapon in public following the death of Henry Nowak.
2:10

‘No special rules for Sikhs, no matter what your religion is, you should not be allowed to carry a knife in public in this country.’ Alex Armstrong says he is ‘completely intolerant’ of anyone carrying a knife or weapon in public following the death of Henry Nowak.

GB News

28,324 views • 3 months ago

So let me get this straight…. In the UK it’s legal to carry swords in public, if you belong to a certain religion. But Women aren’t legally allowed to carry Pepper Spray for self-defence. Please make it make sense.
0:22

So let me get this straight…. In the UK it’s legal to carry swords in public, if you belong to a certain religion. But Women aren’t legally allowed to carry Pepper Spray for self-defence. Please make it make sense.

Concerned Citizen

133,461 views • 3 months ago

This is what it takes to own a modern rifle in Massachusetts. The Sons of Liberty would not have stood for it. With a fixed-mag setup, we can make most modern rifles Massachusetts-compliant. IF and IMMEDIATELY when SCOTUS rules in our favor, we will be liberating rifles as fast as we can.
1:28

This is what it takes to own a modern rifle in Massachusetts. The Sons of Liberty would not have stood for it. With a fixed-mag setup, we can make most modern rifles Massachusetts-compliant. IF and IMMEDIATELY when SCOTUS rules in our favor, we will be liberating rifles as fast as we can.

Cape Gun Works

40,237 views • 2 months ago

🚨REFORM UK DEPUTY LEADER TICE SAYS THEY WOULD SEND BRITISH ARMED FORCES TO FIGHT IN IRAN Why? What possible good could come of that? We have thousands of Jihadis here in the UK which you won't deport. What happens when we start attacking Iran. THEY START ATTACKING BRITISH CITIZENS Can we not sort out our problems at home FIRST before going around the world please
0:36

🚨REFORM UK DEPUTY LEADER TICE SAYS THEY WOULD SEND BRITISH ARMED FORCES TO FIGHT IN IRAN Why? What possible good could come of that? We have thousands of Jihadis here in the UK which you won't deport. What happens when we start attacking Iran. THEY START ATTACKING BRITISH CITIZENS Can we not sort out our problems at home FIRST before going around the world please

Basil the Great

82,936 views • 6 months ago

I reject any accusation that having these conversations and considerations are ‘divisive’ or an ‘attack’ on Sikh communities - who are genuinely beautiful people. This is not an attack on people - this is a conversation around a KNIFE that people happen to carry freely. If you want to live in Australia, carrying around 20cm blades on religious grounds, symbolic or not, does not pass the pub test.
2:07

I reject any accusation that having these conversations and considerations are ‘divisive’ or an ‘attack’ on Sikh communities - who are genuinely beautiful people. This is not an attack on people - this is a conversation around a KNIFE that people happen to carry freely. If you want to live in Australia, carrying around 20cm blades on religious grounds, symbolic or not, does not pass the pub test.

The Calista Cut

12,034 views • 3 months ago

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry. 29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states? Under HR 38 (Reciprocity), a resident of one of the Constitutional Carry states can carry in any state that allows their citizens to obtain a permit. The recent “Bruen” Supreme Court decision requires all states that aren’t Constitutional Carry to issue carry permits to their citizens. This means that when HR 38 passes, any resident of those 29 Constitutional Carry states will be able to carry in any of the 50 states without a permit. Ironically, however, residents of the 21 states (like New York or California) that aren’t Constitutional Carry will need a permit to carry in their own state, while visitors from states that are Constitutional Carry (like Kentucky or Ohio) won’t need a permit to carry in states like New York or California. If Congress, relying on the Second Amendment, can force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Kentuckians who visit California, why would we not force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Californians who are in California? In other words, why not pass National Constitutional Carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to “bear arms” which is enshrined in the Constitution? The other quirk of HR 38 is that (I believe) it would allow a person from Kentucky to carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians would not be allowed to carry, or even own, the same equipment. The Supreme Court decision in “D.C. v. Heller,” whether you agree with it or not, allows states to have some regulations on firearm equipment and eligibility to possess, but HR 38 seems to contradict that framework. Contrast this with my National Constitutional Carry bill which basically says if a state allows people to possess (KEEP) a particular firearm, that state must also allow people to carry (BEAR) that firearm. I introduced my National Constitutional Carry bill in committee yesterday as a substitute amendment to HR 38, National Reciprocity. After introducing the amendment for the record and describing it, I withdrew the amendment instead of putting my Judiciary Committee colleagues in the position of deciding whether to replace National Reciprocity with National Constitutional Carry. The dilemma is that not enough Republicans in the whole House understand the difference, and the prevailing opinion is that Reciprocity can pass the whole House, but Constitutional Carry cannot. Perhaps when more of my colleagues who are not on the Judiciary Committee understand why we should pass National Constitutional Carry instead of (or in addition to) National Reciprocity, we can make a strong push to report National Constitutional Carry out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote in the full House of Representatives. In the meantime, I’m glad HR 38 is going to the House floor for a vote.
5:49

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry. 29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states? Under HR 38 (Reciprocity), a resident of one of the Constitutional Carry states can carry in any state that allows their citizens to obtain a permit. The recent “Bruen” Supreme Court decision requires all states that aren’t Constitutional Carry to issue carry permits to their citizens. This means that when HR 38 passes, any resident of those 29 Constitutional Carry states will be able to carry in any of the 50 states without a permit. Ironically, however, residents of the 21 states (like New York or California) that aren’t Constitutional Carry will need a permit to carry in their own state, while visitors from states that are Constitutional Carry (like Kentucky or Ohio) won’t need a permit to carry in states like New York or California. If Congress, relying on the Second Amendment, can force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Kentuckians who visit California, why would we not force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Californians who are in California? In other words, why not pass National Constitutional Carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to “bear arms” which is enshrined in the Constitution? The other quirk of HR 38 is that (I believe) it would allow a person from Kentucky to carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians would not be allowed to carry, or even own, the same equipment. The Supreme Court decision in “D.C. v. Heller,” whether you agree with it or not, allows states to have some regulations on firearm equipment and eligibility to possess, but HR 38 seems to contradict that framework. Contrast this with my National Constitutional Carry bill which basically says if a state allows people to possess (KEEP) a particular firearm, that state must also allow people to carry (BEAR) that firearm. I introduced my National Constitutional Carry bill in committee yesterday as a substitute amendment to HR 38, National Reciprocity. After introducing the amendment for the record and describing it, I withdrew the amendment instead of putting my Judiciary Committee colleagues in the position of deciding whether to replace National Reciprocity with National Constitutional Carry. The dilemma is that not enough Republicans in the whole House understand the difference, and the prevailing opinion is that Reciprocity can pass the whole House, but Constitutional Carry cannot. Perhaps when more of my colleagues who are not on the Judiciary Committee understand why we should pass National Constitutional Carry instead of (or in addition to) National Reciprocity, we can make a strong push to report National Constitutional Carry out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote in the full House of Representatives. In the meantime, I’m glad HR 38 is going to the House floor for a vote.

Thomas Massie

229,372 views • 1 year ago

🇬🇧 UK : London - Ahmed from Morocco attempted to rape a 13-year-old British girl, caught by British Patriots. Sentenced by the UK justice system in July 2020 to 54 weeks imprisonment. Ahmed is free now. What do you think?
1:40

🇬🇧 UK : London - Ahmed from Morocco attempted to rape a 13-year-old British girl, caught by British Patriots. Sentenced by the UK justice system in July 2020 to 54 weeks imprisonment. Ahmed is free now. What do you think?

Shunya

63,197 views • 1 year ago

Nigel saying harassment happens in the fashion world (not untrue) but you need to be able to handle it and get the job done when cameras are around you in 2026 is crazy. I am not even referring to his old comment but the one he made in the modern confessional #RealityCheck #ATM
0:37

Nigel saying harassment happens in the fashion world (not untrue) but you need to be able to handle it and get the job done when cameras are around you in 2026 is crazy. I am not even referring to his old comment but the one he made in the modern confessional #RealityCheck #ATM

Steven

382,227 views • 6 months ago

"Is it right to call a kid that's on somebody else's roster to go get him? It's not. I think, in a lot of ways, what goes around comes around... I'm a strong believer in the football gods will find you at some point." - Auburn HC Alex Golesh on tampering in college football
1:32

"Is it right to call a kid that's on somebody else's roster to go get him? It's not. I think, in a lot of ways, what goes around comes around... I'm a strong believer in the football gods will find you at some point." - Auburn HC Alex Golesh on tampering in college football

The Next Round

385,397 views • 7 months ago

One of, if not the most grotesque examples of a franchise being gutted, defiled, and paraded around as a hollow mockery of what it once was, all to grovel at the feet of the so-called “modern audience”: Guilty Gear. A truly japanese homicide by the japanese
1:45

One of, if not the most grotesque examples of a franchise being gutted, defiled, and paraded around as a hollow mockery of what it once was, all to grovel at the feet of the so-called “modern audience”: Guilty Gear. A truly japanese homicide by the japanese

LearningTheLaw ✝️

31,411 views • 1 month ago