THBT Citizens on the Terrorist Screening Database should not be barred from purchasing firearms

Points of agreementThere are several points that both con and I agree on. I want to post this to make things easier for the readers and voters of the debate:-We both agree that guns are not free from government regulations and that more control is necessary.-We both agree on the point that the overall crime rate and gun violence rate has gone down, in spite of the influx of terrorism.-We both agree that there are mistakes on the TSDB, though we disagree on whether or not it can be described as deeply flawed(more on this later).-We both agree that rights are not unlimited and that sometimes it is necessary for the government to intrude on those rights (however, we disagree whether or not TSDB is a justified intrusion).Defense of opening argumentsConstitutional ViolationIn my opening speech, I highlighted several constitutional issues that could come up with a no-buy list. For ease of reading, I will repost them down here.Second AmendmentThe right to bear armsFourth AmendmentRight to Life, Liberty and PropertyRight to Confront and Call WitnessesFifth AmendmentRight to a Speedy and Public TrialMy opponent's case on the constitutionality of a no-buy list hinges on Title V of the PATRIOT Act. However, Title V of the Patriot Act and the no-buy list differ significantly. As noted by con, Title V approved stronger powers for the government, restraining rights of the individual in order to combat terrorism, including financial support, obstruction of justice, or conspiracy. According to con's own source (1):"History makes clear, however, that information gathered for any purpose may be misused. Across multiple administrations, individuals and groups have been targeted for their activism, and sensitive personal information has been exploited for both political and petty reasons. The combination of vastly increased collection of innocuous information about Americans, long-term retention of these materials, enhanced electronic accessibility to stored data, and expanded information-sharing exponentially increases the risk of misuse."The potential misuse and abuse of a no-buy list is the major reason for opposition to a no-buy list. Would the government be able to use this list to target law-abiding gun owners? What makes a no-buy list different from Title V of the Patriot Act is that it denies a liberty that is guaranteed within the Constitution without due process and without a chance to appear before a court and to confront government witnesses. This is the issue that the NRA et al. take on the issue (2). Errors on the TSDBMy opponent agrees that there are mistakes, but questions whether or not it can be called "deeply flawed," and argues that such a few examples that I have provided does not fulfill that burden. To respond, I will argue that when the 2009 DOJ report states that over 1/3 of the names are outdated, there is a deep flaw within the system (see round 2, source 4). It is deeply flawed because it operates under the assumption that you are guilty before proven innocent. There are at least 7 different ways that a law-abiding citizen could end up on the no-fly list and 3 of them basically boiled down to personal dislike. Your ex-partner, employee, neighbor etc. could report you and you can end up on the list. This, in fact, happened to several people (3, 4). There are also instances where a sitting Senator was added incorrectly to the no-fly list, an 18 month old baby (5), two journalists, a former U.S. attorney, and a disabled veteran (6). If that does not make the no-fly list "deeply flawed", I do not know what will.Alternative PlanMy opponent agrees with my alternative plan. This is a vital contention here as if I can show that there are much more effective, less intrusive, and constitutional plan to combat terrorism and prevent terrorists from getting guns, then I can win the debate on the grounds that the TSDB is not necessary. My opponent argues that my plan can be used hand-in-hand with the no-buy list; however, the plan that I set forth would make a no-buy list moot.ConclusionI have proven that the no-fly list is unconstitutional and deeply flawed. Moreover, should my plan be put in place, it would make the no-buy list unnecessary. Until the flaws are fixed and until due process is given, it should not and cannot be used to restrict our civil liberties. As we both agree, guns are not and should not be free from regulation, but those regulations that are in place must be consistent with the Constitution. I would like to thank my opponent for a powerful and educational debate. I am very much looking forward to debating with you in the future! Good luck in the voting period! To make the rounds as even as possible, I will not defend my rebuttals in this round.Sources 1. https://www.brennancenter.org...;2. https://www.nraila.org...;3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;4. http://www.salon.com...;5. http://www.cnn.com...;6. http://www.dailywire.com...;