Episode 6: The Second Amendment: is it relevant or not?

Alex's blog:
In defense of man:
https://indefenseofman.org/

This is a podcast for those who love to talk common sense about everyday issues. You will listen to a variety of guests that share common sense ideas through their life experiences by sharing what they learned. For any comments, questions or suggestions for future topics, please contact the show at: stand4commonsense@outlook.com
Song title: Upbeat Indie Folk Music
Music by Lesfm from Pixabay

Transcript

MizzyM: 0:00

welcome back to another episode of Podcast From the Edge Talking Common Sense. This is your host Manju and I thank you for tuning in. So for today's episode, we will be talking about the second Amendment from its origins in England to how the founding fathers adopted it into the Constitution and how it relates to the present day. I hope you enjoy today's lively conversation, so sit back and enjoy the show. Okay, so today we have Alex who grew up in Connecticut and he has done a lot of research into the Second Amendment, which is the right to bear arms. And Alex, you developed a blog

Alex: 0:51

mm-hmm. with, um, I did

MizzyM: 0:52

from many resources, right? From your research.. Yeah. So why don't we just jump in and, uh, start.

Alex: 0:59

Cool. Alrighty. So thanks for having me, Manju. Really appreciate the opportunity to be here. Um, it's a big topic. The Second Amendment has, there's so much involved in it. There's so much that, uh, we just can't possibly explain tonight. So I'm just gonna try to like, Pull some, some historical facts, um, and then kind of talk about what the founders were saying at, at the time of the, uh, the framing of the Constitution and, um, the ratifying conventions, what they were talking about a little bit. And then, um, after that we can just kind of relate that to where we are today, how the Second Amendment still applies, and what that would look like in, uh, in a free society. I'm just gonna start with Yeah. The quote from President Eisenhower.

MizzyM: 1:46

Well, why don't we first talk about, um, how the Second Amendment even originated from, like, where did it come from and how did it become such a huge part in the culture?

Alex: 1:58

Okay. Yeah. So the second Amendment, it comes from the general military plan that was introduced. Um, to England by the Norman Conquest in, in the year 1066 you know, the Battle of Hastings is a big part of, um, of medieval history, a pivotal moment in world history too. Uh, the Normans brought with them the fuel system, which was effectively a military hierarchy, which was imposed on society. So that, In a case of invasion or rebellion, there would always be a military force ready for the king to call upon at a moment's notice. Um, and from that, there's actually a whole, a whole history of laws that were passed in England that required the average male citizen, um, to have a certain, a certain array of armament, right? So depending on where he fell in the futile hierarchy, he was. He was required to keep certain arms and, um, one of the first codifications of that law was in the reign of King Henry II in 1181, which is just a little bit over a century after the initial conquest of England. That required all men of the realm to keep bear certain arms according to the rank in the futile hierarchy. Um, and I actually have a quote here from the ass of arms and it says, quote, whosoever holds, A knight's fee shall have a coat of male, a helmet, a shield, and a lance, and every knight as many as he shall, have knight's fees in his domain. Every freeman having in channels that is movable property and rent, uh, to the value of 15 marks shall keep a coat of male, a helmet, and a shield, and a lance. Every free layman who shall have in chattle more than 10 marks in rent, shall have a sleeveless armored coat. A uh, a skull cap says here, a chaplet, which is a, a type of helmet, um, of iron and a lance. Also all Burgess and the whole community of Freeman shall have a wombas, which was an inexpensive leather body armor, a chap of iron and a lance. Every one of these shall swear that he will have these arms before the Feast of St. Hillary. And it goes on to, um, actually impose penalties for men of the realm who were, uh, not armed. For guys who didn't acquire whatever arms they're required to under the, as of 1181. And that's pretty interesting because, um, there were even sheriffs, sheriffs were appointed to different, uh, shires in the realm to go about and ensure that not, not that you didn't have, um, a 30 round magazine or to ensure that you know your firearm was properly registered, but to actually ensure that you had weaponry. Which is kind of like, imagine that today, you know, sheriffs not going around. I mean, people, if somebody, if somebody carries a firearm into a theater, right? Which in the state of Connecticut, we actually have the right to open carry. Okay. Um, there's nothing, there's nothing illegal about that. But there have been a whole bunch of incidents where people are exercising their right to um, To bear arms as they see fit and the, the police have been called on them and those people have been subject to, if not, um, actual penalties, then certainly to, to infringement upon their right to do what they ought to do, their right to keep and bear arms. Um, okay.

MizzyM: 5:19

Yeah. Well, So from 10 66 where the Second Amendment actually arose for military reasons mm-hmm. right. In England. How did um, it get to the founding fathers and the Constitution for the amendment? Here in America.

Alex: 5:36

Right. Well, the interesting thing is that the amendment doesn't mention anything about self defense or hunting or sport shooting activities. Um, that's what we're led to believe. Right. That's, that's what the, um, the politically correct narrative of the Second Amendment is. It's that it's for, you know, keeping a pistol by your bedside or, um, you know, the NRA might go as far as to say that, uh, well, it's so you can have a modern sporting. You know, so you can have, you can have 30 rounds to go out and shoot a deer. Uh, well, you know, that's up to the individual hunters, I guess. But the fact of the matter is the second amendment, Really has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with self defense in the modern conception, but it actually has everything to do with the military plan. And, um, that was the military plan. That's the pedigree that started in 1066. Maybe not exactly in 1066. I mean, the Normans had just conquered England and, you know, you had a bunch of angles and Saxons running around that didn't like their new Norman overlords, but pretty quickly by 1181, uh, within a century it was, it was. It was a law that you had to be armed, and that was, you know, it applied to every man in the realm, which is pretty impressive. Um, so the, that there's been a series of laws, there were laws that were passed, um, all throughout the Middle Ages, going right up to the time of the American founding that required, uh, the same thing. And it was just, An update of the original ass of arms, which was to say that, um, you know, as warfare evolved, the arms that you were required to own, depending on your rank in society, um, were, you know, they evolved as well. So it constantly, consistently became more and more modern. Yeah. There was never this idea that the common man shouldn't be able to own, um, what the, what the kings meant own as well. Um, okay. Yeah. That, that was, that didn't, that didn't enter into the mind of anybody, um, except for, well, Well, okay, about the time of Henry, I think it was the seventh, um, that's when there were a series of English civil wars to determine who would control the throne. And, um, about that time is when you started to see standing soldiers. But for the longest time, um, there was no such thing as a standing army. There was no such thing as a, as a soldiery in England. And that's actually, that's evidence here. I have a quote here, I'm gonna try to find it. Um, it's by William Blackstone and he was the preeminent scholar of the English common law. Um, and he actually published, he published the definitive collection of, uh, of common law in 1774, uh, the same year that the revolution was, was beginning, um, or you know, right about. Uh, here in America and Blackstone, you know, that our founding fathers, they considered themselves to be Englishmen. What they were fighting for were the rights of Englishmen. They weren't fighting some kind of a egalitarian revolution to establish, you know, that all men are created equal, equal. No. That that's what, that's what was understood even in England. And that's where the right, the idea of the rights of. Came from. And so when the king attempted to infringe upon the rights of the simple colonists in, in Massachusetts, you know, tradesmen, farmers, uh, when he attempted to seize their well right to keep and bear arms, um, they rebelled. But that rebellion wasn't a revolution. It wasn't an ideological revolution. Certainly not at first, but it was a defense of their rights. Um, and it's interesting too, because. The Declaration of Independence in its, its list of grievances that they have against the English throne at the time against the Crown in Parliament. One of them, uh, states specifically that the Crown had in times of peace. Kept amongst them standing soldiers or standing army, um, quartered them in their homes. There's a lot here, right, that we just take for granted today. We're like, oh, you know, we're Americans. We have our mil, our American military, uh, you know, the Germans have the German military. The Chinese have the Chinese military. You know, every nation has its own military. But what we don't understand is that, well, it might be good in times of war, right? If we're invaded to have a military force. In the waiting. Um, what does the law say about that? What does, what does the constitution say? You know, it, if we're not operating within the bounds of the constitution, well, what do we have? You know, at best we have of benevolent dictatorship, but at worst, We have a tyranny, and that's exactly what the founding fathers were fighting against, was tyranny. They, they wanted the law to be followed by the King Parliament and by themselves. So I think it's really important that we understand what the Second Amendment actually is about, because at the end of the day, um, the uncomfortable reality, as Chairman Mao once said, he said that power proceeds from the barrel of a gun, right. Where's the balance of power? If, if the entire citizenry is disarmed, but the government is completely armed. That's right. I mean, like what are you gonna do if you need to stand up for your rights?

MizzyM: 11:10

Exactly. Yeah. Now people that have the opposing view, um, who are against the Second Amendment. They talk about, well, the Second Amendment was written for as, I mean, they basically quote what, um, the English had envisioned it as that it was for, um, bearing arms, which were muskets. Sure. Right. Not for the semi-automatic weapons that people have today or anything else. So how would you address that.

Alex: 11:43

So, um, the founders weren't stupid they realized that, uh, technology was progressing at a very fast pace. Um, hold on. See, I think I'm having trouble here with my audio. Can you, can you still hear me Manju? Yeah, you're fine. Okay. That kind of died on me for a second, but, um, the founders understood. Technology was advancing rapidly, um, within their own lifetime. They had seen multiple advances in small arms. Um, and for instance, one of the reasons why the, the woodsmen of the American backwards were able to fight and win a battle like Kings Mountain, uh, was because they were armed with superior arms from the standing army. Of England, they had rifled muskets, which were capable of accuracy out to out to about 500 yards in some cases. Which was, you know, it's pretty significant if you think about that, when the Brown Best, which was the common arm of the, um, the English surgery, uh, that was only accurate out to maybe about 75 yards, and you were lucky if you could achieve accuracy out to out to a hundred. So, um, the, the fact that the. The common woodsman at the time was armed with, with better weaponry than the best trained, best armed military in the entire world. Says something about the mindset of the founders. Um, but there were also, you know, I'm not, I'm not an expert in all things small arms, uh, all things 18th century small arms, but there are many examples of attempts at creating repeating arms. Um, there were certain firearms that were capable of firing more than one shot at once. Uh, I think in one case there was one that could fire like 13, 13 shots at once. Mm-hmm. which is pretty impressive. Right. Um, so yeah. And, and also even. Even if the founders believed that the, um, that they were only protecting muskets. Right. Well, those were the arms of the day. That's right. Yeah. Those were the arms of the day. And, um, any legal dictionary that you look at from that era would define, uh, Samuel Johnson. He has pretty much the definitive, uh, dictionary, which was used by the founding generation. It was, it was kinda like our Webster dictionary today. But that defined arms, the word arms, right in the second minute, it says, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms with a capital A, if you actually read the text, capital A. So it's using a, a term of art right there when he says arms. And if you look at what that meant, um, it was defined as armor of defense and weapons of offense. So it's pretty broad definition there too. Um, so even if, uh, you know, maybe one of the founders said, well, you know, I know that in the future we're gonna have fully thematic weapons and maybe even light sabers and, uh, laser guns. You know, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just gonna sign this and codify this, put my, my sealed approval on this so that, um, my fellow Americans can only ever keep. Muzzle loading rifles, Right, right. It wouldn't change the meaning of the word, would it Arms, it wouldn't change the meaning of the word,

MizzyM: 15:13

but the, um, let's just say when the other side who, or people who are against the second amendment, let's just say mm-hmm. um, they do call these arms, uh, weapons of war.

Alex: 15:26

Well, that's exactly what arms are. I mean it, so Right.

MizzyM: 15:29

But they're seeing it from. And if you look at their viewpoint, just be the devil's advocate. Oh yeah. Um, what they're seeing it as is, well, why are weapons of war or something that is used for the military now on the streets?

Alex: 15:43

Aha. That's the secret that's the purpose of the Second Amendment. Right. The idea is that we are that well regulated militia. We are what is the best security of a free state, not of any. Of a free state. Uh, we, we are in a constitutional plan if you look at the law, and I can go into that further if you'd like. I, I can, I can pull that up. But if, if you look at the law and you read it carefully mm-hmm. you see that there are certain powers that were, uh, granted to Congress. One of them, and again, every word that they use is very, very specific. If you, if you read. James Madison's notes on the, uh, on the ratifying convention, I'm sorry, the Ratifying Convention, the constitutional convention of, I think it was like 17, 17 89 to 17 90, 91. Um, there are entire pages devoted to, um, debating the, the meaning of a word, right? Like the, the type of word that would be used in there. So when we look at the Constitution, we can have faith that what they. Is what they mean. And it's not just some kind of willy-nilly, you know, um, whatever you might want it to mean clause. So, um, but one of the things that was granted to the federal government was the, the prerogative, right? Government doesn't have rights. It has prerogatives. Um, but it has the prerogative to maintain a navy, but to call forth the militia to provide for arm. It doesn't grant the federal government the ability to maintain an army, but to maintain a Navy. Right. And that might seem crazy to some people today. Some people might be like, oh, well, you know, what are you gonna do if China invades? Well, okay, you know, there's, there's reasonable accommodation. But I think that my, my purpose in all of this is to. To have the rule of law prevail again. Right, right. Um, I'm gonna read you a quote here. Uh, it's from Dwight d Eisenhower. Everybody liked Ike. Yeah. Uh, president Eisenhower, he warned the American people in his farewell address of the growing threat and menace to freedom of a large standing military industrial complex. That's right. Stating in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted. I. Whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex, the potential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. You know, his foresight and perspective, not only from his personal experiences, but from the perspective of history. Have been validated by the evidence of a rapidly expanding federal government, the loss of personal liberties at an ever increasing rate, and the attack on the basic fabric of American liberty, our right to keep and bear arms. The, the argument that is made is that the Second Amendment is irrelevant because we've got an army. And you know what? They're right. When people make that argument, they're right. I mean, there's no, there's no real reason for people unless. Unless you think that the founders are building into the constitution a, a doomsday, uh, mechanism, so to speak, like the, the well, we believe in the right to revolution, so we're gonna provide. That everybody, uh, can have whatever they want for guns, and that's so that they can kill us you know, like these guys are the ones framing the new government, which is designed to protect liberty, right? But they're not gonna be, they're not gonna be building in a sign on capsule in their, in their tooth. Right? They're not saying like, oh, eventually we're gonna kill ourselves. No, no. A government is something that's gonna want to exist and persist it. It's, it's like any other, Creature, so to speak, that has a life and well of its own. And so long as the vast majority of people in this country, in the union, uh, so long as they ascribe to the rule of law, then the government will continue. But, but if we're not being ruled by the law, that is, if we're not applying the law, How we vote right to, to what the national debate is. If we just, if we accept the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power, uh, to be constantly there. And, and some people could even argue that it, it is indeed used in ways that are not in the best interest of the American people, but of the oligarchy that now sits in in power

MizzyM: 20:41

um, That's true.

Alex: 20:43

Yeah. So, so what do we want? You know, um, and you can, you can ask people that too. If, if they say, well, these are weapons of war, we don't want them on the streets. Well ask them, do you, do you wanna be free or do you wanna be safe? Right. Because freedom, freedom is not safe. It is free.

MizzyM: 21:03

That's right. Yes. That's very true. Why is it that, um, when there's legislation that comes up in the United States Congress mm-hmm. about, um, mofi modification mm-hmm. of a weapon like a gun, okay. Mm-hmm. like, for example, bump stocks. Mm-hmm. um, there is such a vigorous argument to not to do that from the Pro Second Amendment. Why is that so controversial? Like having modifications?

Alex: 21:40

Um, I think because people have a sense of, of infringement, I think that people, uh, deep down, so it's, it's kind of hard to speak for the entire, uh, second Amendment community, so to speak. I, I don't like that word, community, but, It's hard to speak for everybody that believes in the Second Amendment because it, the Second Amendment means so many different things to so many different people. But that's why I, I looked into it and I started writing about it because the fact of the matter is, you know, anything can mean anything to anyone, but if it doesn't mean something, Then it means nothing. And um, I think that's where, that's where the Second Amendment, um, advocacy groups. I think that's where they've gone really wrong because they're not talking about what the purpose of the Second Amendment is. It's called being a NeoCon. You know, they're conservatives, genuine conservatives. And by the way, that's not a pejorative. Nobody's calling anybody names. Um, it's just genuine conservatism believes in the rule of law. And if there was no Second Amendment, if there was no Second Amendment in the Constitution, then that would be like, okay, well there's no second Amendment. But the fact of the matter is there is. It's there, and why are we picking and choosing what laws we're going to follow? Right. So, um, kinda get back to your question that the, the best example of what I'm talking about is the NRA for years and years, the NRA has not touched what we're talking about right now. Um, the fact that the Second Amendment is, it, it is the military. Of the government, right? The, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the military. It is the power built into the constitutional order. Um, people, people even, uh, big time federalists at the time of the ratification, people who were there at the convention, um, they, they all knew what they were talking about when they were talking about enshrining, the right to keep and bear arms into the constitution. And it wasn't so that, you know, we could have bump stocks. It wasn't so that we could have AR fifteens. It was so that the security of the nation be, would be insured of a free state, a state where people are not under the thumb of an overpowering, overbearing government, cuz these guys had just fought against that. They had just thrown that off. The most powerful king, the most powerful empire in the world that the world had ever seen. And these guys threw it off. The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect bump stocks. It is not to protect, uh, you know, 30 round magazines. It's not to protect cosmetic features of firearms. It is to ensure that the government itself will be held to account by the fact that at the end of the day, it is the consent of the people that. And not the force of a gun, not chairman mouths power growing out of the end of a gun.

MizzyM: 24:49

Well then, um, what would be your opinion on red flag laws then?

Alex: 24:56

I mean, red flag laws are just, are just like the bump stock bans, just like, um, pretty much every other law that attempts to restrict. The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Uh, it's unconstitutional. There's, there's no authority there for the government to do that. And I think that, um, you know what, what we see when we're talking about red flag laws, when we're talking about, uh, you know, any kind of a law that's gonna purportedly protect us, make us safe in society. Well, what we're talking about is a societal change. You know, because here's. The cold, hard truth that most people don't like to, uh, think about when we talk about passing it outta law to stop crime. Well, who follows the law? Law abiding people. People who follow the law, but who doesn't. Well, a criminal is not gonna follow the law, you know?

MizzyM: 25:50

Oh yeah. If you ban guns, they're just gonna go into the black market, just like the way alcohol used to be in the twenties, you know?

Alex: 25:57

Well, exactly. Yeah. Um, what we need is a societal change. We, we need a cultural change, a perspective. America has been through an awful, awful lot in the last 200 years, but I think that we're living at a time right now where we could, we could actually expect to see that kind of a, a seismic shift. The will of the people to govern themselves again. Um, you know, amazing things have been happening. If you're conservative, amazing things have been happening. I mean, hey, I guess if you're, I guess if you're a progressive, amazing things have been happening too. And, um, you know, I think that that's unfortunate, but. I, I do think that, um, once people stop looking to government to keep them safe and start, start taking on that basic function of being a human right, especially being a free human. A person who's able to defend themselves is a person who's able to stand up for what they believe in. But if you don't have that power, if you don't have the power to act, then what do you have? You have words, but words are use. you know, they're useless against lead. Yeah,

MizzyM: 27:08

I agree. I mean, let's even take the, the state of Connecticut and the legislature here. I mean, um, I think they were gonna do some sort of, um, major laws too, the, um, to the Second Amendment, but mm-hmm. you know, like you were saying, the culture, there's a huge culture shift. People who now own guns and that culture shift is actually expanding. Yep. And it's including, guess what groups. The Asian community. Mm-hmm. Yep. Women. Yep. And African Americans. Mm-hmm. Yep. And that's all because of high crime. Mm-hmm. that happens in where they live. Yep. Or even the threat of crime.

Alex: 27:50

Yeah. And you know what, that's, that's a good thing. I'm not saying crime's a good thing. I'm saying the fact that people are, are saying, alright, we gotta, you know, the government is not gonna keep us safe. We gotta take care of ourselves. Well, that's been, that's been the reality since before they realized they had to take care of themselves. It's just, I think that, You know the, the events the last. Four years have really changed a lot of minds. And um, that's a good thing. You know, it's, that's fertile ground for, for freedom. Right.

MizzyM: 28:19

And I think the more voices that are heard, um, you know, I think for example, like in Connecticut when they did have this committee hearing, On gun control legislation. And a lot of African Americans came out. I think it was a shock Yes. To both sides of the aisle. Yes. And. That whatever legislation they had pending was shot down I mean, you know, bad use of terminology, but it, it was, um, and it, it went down. So it was totally defeated because of that. Cuz I think they were so surprised there were that many African Americans that were actually supporting the Second Amendment.

Alex: 28:55

Yes. Yeah. It's, you know, that's the, um, the British Empire, when they, when they invaded and conquered India, they had a plan to keep India from coal. To get the Indian people from coalescing into a single. People. Right, right, right. And that plan was to pit community against community.

MizzyM: 29:14

Well, kingdoms versus kingdoms.

Alex: 29:16

Yes. You know? Yeah. Well, well, yes. Kingdoms versus kingdoms, but to like put pit groups against each other so that they could always keep this, this need for government to be there to step in and provide the solution, which in the case of the British Empire, More control, more restriction. Not everything about the British Empire was bad, right. I'm, I'm Irish by descent. Um, 700 years my family battled the British Empire. Um, You know, at the end of the day

MizzyM: 29:47

we see from guns, you know, like giving military and military equipment to different kings, you know, or princess I should say. You know?

Alex: 29:57

Yeah, yeah. Well, we see that happening today, how they did it.

MizzyM: 29:59

So they were allowed to basically kill each other. Mm-hmm. and then be weakened. Mm-hmm. And then the British would come in and take taken control, you know?

Alex: 30:07

Mm-hmm. but, but who was caught in the. The little man, there was no idea there of, of freedom. There was no idea that, you know, individuals had rights, God given rights. But here, there, there is. And I think that that's, that might be the fatal flaw of those who wish to, to take away perhaps the most important element of our freedom. And that is our ability to stand up free to, to be a buffer against tyranny. Um, I wanna read a quote here from, um, the guys who are known as the Anti-Federalists. Uh, the Federalists were, were those individuals who were, um, I know it sounds like, it sounds like heresy to say that there were people who were against the Constitution but they might have had some points. I don't know. Um, But the, the anti-Federalists, uh, believed that the Constitution gave way too much power to the federal government. And one of the things that they said, I'm just gonna, um, I'm gonna read it to you here. It says here, A standing army in the hands of a government placed, so independent of the people may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties. It may be employed to enforce the collection of the most oppressive taxes to carry into execution, the most arbitrary measure. An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion may step up to the throne and seize upon absolute power. The absolute unqualified command that Congress have over the militia may be made instrumental to the destruction of all liberty, both public and private, whether of a personal, civil or religious nature. These guys were arguing for the exact wording of the Second Amendment to be inserted into the constitution to provide against what they're talking about there. Um, the, the collection of the most oppressive taxes, well, I, I don't know about you, but I think most people would agree that 50%, you know, when you take into account that the total tax load, especially in the state like Connecticut, 50% around there of our income is going to the government and what are they doing with it? Trillions of dollars in armaments left in Afghanistan, a country we probably shouldn't have been in the first place, but trillions of dollars. We're sending billions and billions of dollars it seems like every month to Ukraine. I mean, these are things that don't really affect the American people, and yet we're still we're, we're at the end of the day. Living six months outta the year for the government because if we don't pay up, then men with guns are gonna come and they're gonna throw you in jail. That's right. Right? That's right. And that's, and and another kind of interesting, um, note to make is that pretty much anywhere else in the world you go to, you go to Europe, you go to Germany, Italy, France, Spain, um, anywhere that doesn't speak English, the there, there's no distinction between the police force and the. The police are a branch of the military, but in the Anglo sphere, that is anywhere that speaks English. So Australia, New Zealand, the United States, England, Ireland. There is a distinction. But that distinction actually comes from exactly what we're talking about right here. The fact that standing armies have always been seen as a threat to liberty. And so to get around that, they say, oh, we're not an army. We're just men with guns, and we work for the government

MizzyM: 33:24

Right, exactly. All right. So this was a really, really insightful conversation, Alex. Really, I, I so appreciate you coming on, really appreciate being here. And, um, We definitely have to have another conversation on this cuz there's just so much in depth.

Alex: 33:40

There's, there's still so much to talk about. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Yeah.

MizzyM: 33:44

Um, so before I let you go, um, I usually ask, you know, all the guests, what is their one piece of common sense they'd like to share with the listeners? So, That's my question. The last question to you is what is your one piece of common sense that you'd like to share?

Alex: 34:04

Live for God and not yourself because when you do that, you are detached from, from anything that could hold you back from living in a truly free life.

MizzyM: 34:15

That's beautiful. Really, truly beautiful. All right then. So thank you so much again, Alex. And um, I'll be speaking to you.

Alex: 34:26

Great. Appreciate it, Manju. Thank you. Okay, bye. Have a good one.

MizzyM: 34:29

Bye-Bye.