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

Thank you for your rebuttals and the initiative you took in laying down our mutual stances, Pro. Constitutional ViolationsI have to argue that Title V and the no-buy list do not differ as much as you claim. Your listing of what obstructions of justice that Title V grants still overpowers the amendments you provided. Restraining the rights of the individual goes as far as having undisclosed information to the public or the individual, and the gag order which stops such rights from reaching the suspected individuals [1]. The court case I used regarding the Patriot Act went un-refuted by Pro, which showed Title V to be constitutional [2].My opponent brings up the argument that valuable important information would be "abused" and "exploited" but risk of misuse and primary objective of the collection of information does not outweigh purpose and use. I must say, it is a weak argument considering I provided my foundation regarding the use and effectiveness of the USFG government data collections [3]. Whether or not misuse happens, the no-buy list and her primary purpose outweighs any menial exploitation of data to advance the American national agenda. I don't like to point out fallacies but "Would the government be able to use this list to target law-abiding gun owners?" looks dangerously close to an "appeal to emotion" when you haven't provided a reason why the US would target them or what benefit the US could obtain from such. My opponent states the difference between the no-buy list and Title V of the Patriot Act is that "it denies a liberty that is guaranteed within the Constitution without due process" but that is the exact protection the Patriot Act offers. You, yourself stated by my quote "Title V approved stronger powers for the government, restraining rights of the individual in order to combat terrorism" which would apply to such a situation that already went to court (Refer to Source 3). Errors on the TSDBThe argument my opponent uses to attempt to fulfill his burden stating that "1/3 of the names are outdated" is in itself, outdated. The report was from 2009, and between 2009 and 2016, there has been quite an exponential rise in fiscal allocation to security departments [4] and terrorist attacks worldwide [5]. A more current report, I offer begs to differ on how incorrect the current TSDB is, claiming it far more effective and accurate than my opponent argues [6]. My opponent doesn't bring reason to why it is flawed by personal dislike, other than claiming it operates under assumptions, which is not true. The database makes surveillance and evidence on suspects which allows them to make more than just assertions to label them suspects [7]. My opponent also did not provide how exactly "personal dislike" can get you on the list, considering it is a team of persons and computers targeting who ends up on the list (Refer to Source 7). In 2009, maybe the TSDB was "deeply flawed", but right now, in 2016, the argument has changed towards more accuracy.Alternative PlanI do agree with your current plan, but it would be far more effective if it came hand-in-hand with the no-buy list. It isn't just agree with one and it means you don't with the other, both systems may operate at the same time. Your plan may be, subjectively less intrusive, but both plans are constitutional (Refer to Source 3). The plan you would set forth would not set the no-buy list moot because the suspects would only be placed under the same category without special surveillance. Terrorists can have outsourced help and surveillance and special formats to prevent firearms being acquired helps more than your plan. ConclusionYou have not proven the no-fly list is unconstitutional, I have proven otherwise with an actual Supreme Court case covering Title V to prove it. You have only used assumptions and support by the ACLU, a republican friendly organization (Refer to Round 3 Arguments). I agree that guns should be regulated, but I believe in far more power granted to the government in order to make sure these powers are enforced and my argument do provide constitutional consistency. I have also shown that there has been a great need for stronger regulations by the government considering terrorist attacks have only been exponentially rising. I have backed up the argument with sources regarding what the government does with the information, how the information is collected and the court case which concluded in my argument's favour.I thank my opponent for this great debate, he proved very powerful arguments and I expect the voting stage to be intense and close. Good luck, as well.Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.csmonitor.com...[3] https://www.brennancenter.org...[4] http://www.federaltimes.com...[5] http://www.nbcnews.com...[6] http://www.dtic.mil...[7] http://dailysignal.com...