"There is no evidence that the FISA Court and NSA programs are effective. Mass surveillance did not prevent tragedy in Boston or aid in identifying those responsible."
I think this part very much weakens your argument and should be removed entirely. First, the NSA has nothing to do with domestic surveillance -- that falls upon the FBI. Secondly, you can collect all of the data that you want, but you won't be able to prevent the lone wolf element (as opposed to organized terrorism), especially with no national database of firearms.
Thanks to the "Patriot Act" and "Threat Fusion Centers," along with other such efforts to streamline the police state agenda in the name of the "War on Terror," government agencies have been sharing information more readily than in the past, apparently to the point of NSA derived intelligence being used in pursuit of drug dealers and tax cheats on US soil.
Of course people are aware of the intended functions of the various federal enforcement agencies, and the fact that these agencies are overstepping their mandate is why people make websites such as the one featured here.
The quotes you refer to are quite relevant, in my view.
It may fall upon the FBI, but weren't the leaks all about the fact that the NSA does in fact implement domestic surveillance?
Also, if the NSA surveillance stopped many terrorists - they could expose it.
Whether this trade-off of privacy vs. security is worth it cannot be left in the hands of a few elite decision makers, even if supposedly exposing the public to these details may make the program lose some of its effectiveness.
I think this part very much weakens your argument and should be removed entirely. First, the NSA has nothing to do with domestic surveillance -- that falls upon the FBI. Secondly, you can collect all of the data that you want, but you won't be able to prevent the lone wolf element (as opposed to organized terrorism), especially with no national database of firearms.