This weeks discussion is a very interesting one, and it’s on a topic that is highly debated today. The Second Amendment states that everyone has the right to bear arms. The government can not prevent you from having a fire arm which is what we learned in D.C. v. Heller 2008. In this case D.C. made it basically impossible to have a firearm in the home, and if you were lucky enough to have one it had to be either broken down or with a trigger lock. So, if you were to be robbed and tried to defend yourself, your home, and your family you were basically out of luck because your weapon would be useless. Now, the next important piece is Todds mental history. He was known to self harm, and suicidal ideations, and depression, but all if this is after he lost his parents in an accident. That would traumatize anyone, especially a teenager. So, Todd has not had any issues for the past 17 years, but because of his past he is now being forced to give up his guns. It is a good thing that the government has put in place mandatory background checks for people with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. This isnt a violation of the Second amendment because it establishes guidelines that will help prevent those who may not be mentally fit to own, possess, or operate a handgun. The Brady act has probably saved countless lives because it does not allow for people to just walk in and out of a store with a firearm without having a background check. In Todds situation, personally I believe he should not be forced to give up his weapons. He should be allowed to get a waiver by being reevaluated by a professional, and then have documentation stating that he is not a threat or risk to himself or others. Or it should at least be annotated if Todd was admitted voluntarily or involuntarily and the circumstances respond to this discussion question in 100 words