couple things

let's all stare out at the terrorist

This point was interesting. "....a magazine that advocated the justifiable homicide position". If true, I'm not sure if that's actually protected free speech or not, to advocate violence. Not because I wouldn't argue that it is (annoying as that may be), but because there's some legal confusion.

"1993 shooting of Tiller". I saw a quote yesterday on google that indicated: The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance when we are in the majority." I'd say we can say, given the amount and consistency of threats to his person and business, who came out ahead on these tests. The supposed majority failed in its imposition toward tolerance. There are many who are suggesting now that this lone act does not or should not discredit pro-life movements. I disagree because this isn't a lone act. Violence toward abortion providers has been constant. There are very rational concerns that indicate an individual may not wish to have an abortion, and pro-life advocates should be permitted to lobby, even intensively, to prevent, limit, restrict, or even to ban abortions, and to protest at clinics that perform them. They should not be permitted to do so with violence and they have done so. In addition the rhetoric that has been used seems to foment and encourage violence further (as in the above case with "justifiable homicide").

This therefore does a great deal to discredit the entire movement simply because when a few members are willing to use violence to further their cause, it suggests there's a problem with the underlying movement. As an example, we shouldn't have to impose democratic rule through invasions and violent assaults on other nations, the merits of our cause should sell themselves and we can do what we can to do so further. But to use violence to create democracy? Similarly, when Islamist movements try to (and indeed, have to) use violence to impose sharia law and to suppress opposition, this doesn't bode well for their underlying demands. Despite what I might think of religious intolerance and practices, I have no problem if an individual wishes to use a particular, even a strict, interpretation of personal morals and conscience and impose it upon themselves. There's a big difference imposing such codes upon everyone else. It's a distinction that occurs within Christianist movements just as often, and a principle reason (based on recent studies) that many people have had something of a falling out with organized religions. I think most of us are content to live and let live, and to leave judgments of less serious matters to whatever higher authority we wish or at least, to allow people to learn of their mistakes and to present grievances where they occur to aid in this matter. There should be no quarrel that prevents people from lobbying a particular social construct or point of view. But they should be able to make that appeal without resorting to force and direct harm. There are occasions where this breaks down on the international scale and war breaks out, just as there are occasions where mayhem and murder occur on the individual level. But we must be careful to deny and to work against violent resolutions toward our civic disagreements just as diplomacy must work to resolve international disputes peacefully where possible.

I am not seeing a pre-existing attempt to suppress violence by ardent anti-abortionists within the remains of the pro-life constituency only a post event grief that may have set in with the understanding of the type of terrorist incident that their rhetoric has fomented.

""Freemen" was a term adopted by those who claimed sovereignty from government jurisdiction and operated under their own legal system, which they called common-law courts...." I think this is similar to the idea that Muslims would operate under their own distinct sharia courts in some countries of Europe. But they're still required to follow most civil laws, particular governing interactions with other people. Simply because your particular group condones a particular strain of violent behavior upon others (or each other) does not mean that the harms that it causes are non-existent and should not or cannot be punished by the society at large. And again, if you must resort to violence (in the case of Roeder, he appeared to be doing so with home-made pipe bombs as far back as 1996), then your case is appreciably weakened. Looking over the statements by those who knew him from various radical groups, even they appear to look at this as someone who was a red flag. And yet none of them stepped him aside to question his rhetoric or his penchant for violence to resolve a social discord? Or to publicly speak out against violence for doing so before this action? Not surprising. When people believe their cause is just anything is often seen as furthering the goals.