And which clause means this without having to say it?

You're kidding, right? You're asking me where the part that I say is unwritten is written down.

But okay, here are the textual cues: the term "homegrown," especially in the defining context of "international cooperative efforts" and connections to "non-US networks." In Europe when people talk like that they mean "Muslim terrorists you can't stop by catching them at your borders."

The concern about "constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda" being aimed at American citizens over the Internet.

The structural emphasis on the promotion and dissemination of ideology. That sort of thing should go without saying, right? Law enforcement in the US has been dealing with people who want to overthrow the government by force for a long time. Why do we need to study it more now? Is there some ideology that doesn't explicitly call for violent insurrection but which some of us might feel is secretly inculcating in certain people a desire to smash our way of life?

So in that context, yes, studying, gathering information, and educating law enforcement means something other than what's implied by the nicey-nice "no civil rights were harmed in the production of this resource center" disclaimer.

I guess I should have them mail me the secret decoder ring next time.

Look, law isn't computer code. You seem like someone who doesn't need to be told that. It's natural language, as strange a form of natural language as it may be, and as such it defines a semiotic space, not just a procedural space. The space so created by this bill is dubious.

Incidentally, though you scorn the idea that

... [c]ollecting any information, no matter what, even if it is gathering together government documents in existence ...

represents some kind of unusual or questionable practice, it is indeed highly questionable. Government agencies are generally prevented from amassing that kind of database.

It sounds funny, especially if all the documents are matters of public record, but it's an extremely important principle in information management as it pertains to civil liberties. There's a qualitative difference — a hugely significant one — between the capabilities of a government which can access the totality of public records concerning any arbitrary citizen at any time, and one that has to do the legwork and gather the data every time, on a named basis.

It was very difficult if not impossible to get a gun [in Weimar Germany] and this was an attempt to stop all the bloodshed between the various political factions, (literally raging gun battles in the streets).

Thanks for your link to an edifying article. I do have to point out that it doesn't say what you say it does. According to the article, Germany's gun control laws were imposed right after the war and kept in place for the next decade. That was during the earliest period of the rise of the Nazis, long before they had the kind of muscle for out and out urban warfare.

The period when the laws were relaxed — and the article makes this point explicitly — was concomitant with the Nazis' increasing influence as they took control of local politics and began to attract notice as a serious national party. It was only then that the violence escalated into widespread gun battles, rather than just targeted killings.

In any case, this isn't about gun control. Who is fearmongering me over HR 1955? I just read about the legislation from ondelette, who asked some questions about it but actually seems to be more concerned with some email activist group, possibly connected to Ron Paul.

After a glance at the legislation I didn't think much of it, but after a closer reading I decided I don't like it. I don't really care who says it's not an issue unless they can speak to my reasons for holding the view that I do. "This here other guy says you're wrong," doesn't cut it.

Of course that goes both ways. If someone were to assert that the bill grants license to beat Muslims in the streets of America, I wouldn't agree — and I would privately conclude that they were an idiot.

The way I see it the bill addresses an issue that doesn't exist — or rather, an issue that appears perfectly well-covered by existing systems. So I don't see the need for it, nobody defending it can explain the need, and the bill itself is using language that sounds like it's code for that "the Muslims are coming to get us!" right-wing trope.

So to me all of that adds up to at best of a waste of time and at worst something undesirable. And yeah, I don't like that.