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

Increase of TerrorismMy opponent made an agreement regarding the increase of terrorism, which I thank him for. However, the form of regulation, especially with the no-fly list, is constitutional. I made a superficial argument in the previous round which I will dig further into now, regarding constitutional controversies within the no-fly list, especially regarding how under the Patriot Act, Title V, which was brought into the Supreme Court, the Patriot Act was found aligned with the constitution [1]. Title V of the Patriot Act dictates the powers granted to the government in order to prevent any other form of terrorism increasing within the United States, one of these powers specifically targets the exact operations of the No-fly list which allows the database to keep the names of individuals confidential, "They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order" [2]. Now, moving onto crime and statistics, the overall trend of criminal activity in the United States has significantly dropped, that which I cannot refute. Of course, these crimes are not relative to terrorism in the United States. It cannot be denied there is a far stronger shock factor to singular and powerful terrorist strikes rather than divided individual fatalities motivated by crime. This is evident considering in terrorist strikes, it would take only one person to create the same amount of physical and emotional devastation in one attack than one lethal criminal event, especially since leaders over the world have been taking measures of restriction dedicated specifically to terrorism [3]. This is also accompanied by the ideological motivation of mass murders, if not simple psychological instability [4], rather than financial motivation which makes terrorism harder and more necessary to tackle [5]. Indeed, it has been a relatively safer time in the United States comparative to the crime rates within the past 20 years, although in a more international scale, even with only criminal factors, the US still tops all other developed countries in gun murders. Regarding errors on the no-fly list, no system is perfect. Although, instead of abolishing the restriction especially when it still functions simply for a few errors, the government should simply be expected to allocate more resources towards the database and parent departments. There is also the possibility of placing the operations strictly inside the Department of Homeland Security and her $41.2 billion dollar budget [6]. As for my opponent's remark on the no-fly list being "deeply flawed", a few examples of such wouldn't support the severity of the adjective you provided. In the paragraph prior to this one, I explained the difference between psychological instability and ideological motivation, something no system that even currently exists would be expected to find an accurate result out of without further digging into the privacy Americans cherish [7]. An Alternative SolutionThe alternative solution my opponent provides is something I personally also agree with, although, as I stated before, the already constitutional access provided by the Patriot Act to the no-buy list would already provide an obstacle to those. The database is prone to making errors, but many of the people that have put on the list were put there for a reason and barring them from accessing guns is the strongest obstacle you can put in front of their goals [8]. I would agree that this solution should be placed into the United States, hand-in-hand with the list in order to prevent further attacks. The US government should be allowed, and are currently in the green to do so, to create as many measures of prevention necessary in this increasingly hostile time. ConclusionMy case does rely on public safety, which is a strong enough wall to affect all the arguments you provided. You have shown an overall trend going down in gun violence, but you did not show the list wouldn't have prevented "several", as you only provided two examples, one of which was not in the hands of the list to stop, but more in the hands of domestic psychological screening. The no-fly list is not deeply flawed, as the criteria established for the list was placed into effect in order to prevent more terrorism. All systems are prone to making errors and the list can simply be reconstructed in standard to prevent any further mistakes. As for the constitutional policies, the No-buy list has every single power you listed, especially government confidentiality, in order to prevent and obstruct any other action of terrorism. Rights have their limits, and freedom isn't free. If Americans are suspected of terrorism, then they will be forced to give up the liberties they are determined to bring down. I will now start with the Round 2 rebuttals, as I have the space and BoP necessity to do so. Round 2 RebuttalsConstitutional ViolationsRegarding the US constitution and the seemingly unnecessary incursions of privacy, the Patriot Act as I had brought up before, specifically Title V, grants the US government the powers to restrict the right of American citizens and keep the information undisclosed in order to avoid the knowledge reaching the suspected terrorists giving them the ability to attempt to bypass the database (Refer to Source 2). My opponent believing that it would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, would find himself incorrect considering Title V was brought up to the Supreme Court before and found constitutional. Since Title V specifically mentions the same processes taken in the operations to prevent American terrorism, the no-buy list and the confidentiality she holds would be protected the Supreme Court and American constitution (Refer to Source 1). The Patriot Act came with many controversies, but it also came with the new powers of the United States government, justifiably taking all the measures necessary for the security of her people. As for the ACLU, you can always expect their Republican-friendly organization to oppose even the simplest gun restrictions against anything impeding upon their interpretation of civil liberties [9]. In a more menial manner to respond to the assumption that it is immoral to remove the rights of a suspected terrorist, "better safe than sorry". I should also say that within the same source of the Oregon Judge, the government appealed the case to a higher court [10], where the gag order of Title V of the Patriot Act protected the confidentiality of the government. Errors of the TSDBI cannot deny the fact that the TSDB has made mistakes although the numbers of mistakes compared with the efficiency of actual suspects and federal protection would deny your belief that it should be placed down below the efficiency it is set to work for. That statement is protected by the fact that actual suspects heavily outweigh the mistakes made [11]. As for those unlucky enough to be misnamed, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and only resource allocation could and should help them rather than an absolute restriction of the system and barring of weapons purchases. I thank my opponent for his powerful arguments, and I look forward to the next round. Sources[1] . http://www.csmonitor.com...[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.ibtimes.com...[4] . https://www.psychologytoday.com...[5]http://www.terrorism-research.com...[6] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] . https://www.brennancenter.org...[8] . http://www.vox.com...[9] . https://www.aclu.org...[10] . http://media.oregonlive.com...[11] . https://www.fbi.gov...