Your right of "free speech" ends when your exercise of it amounts to communication of a threat.
Poobs also indicates that he thinks an appropriate response toward those who are doing what they legally can to prevent a murder ought to be subjected to murder.
Sorry, but blocking someone from moving about their business, refusing to get out of their way when asked, and deliberately moving to prevent them from stepping around you--that's unlawful detention, and the way Scheidler does it resembles a mugger trying to distract his victim.
Even when people who are obviously unarmed illegally enter an abortion mill the appropriate response would not be to kill them.
If someone illegally enters my property while I am on it, and they do so in full knowledge that I am there, the rules on application of deadly force are much looser than otherwise would be the case. No one is "obviously unarmed" unless they are naked as the day they were born.
You do NOT have the 2nd amendment right to kill trspassers in broad daylight who are obviously not armed and dangerous.
Wrong. Anyone trespassing indoors while the owner/tenant is present, in full knowledge of that owner/tenant's presence, is presumed to be engaged in a higher level of threat than someone trespassing in a reasonable belief that the premises are unoccupied.
As for the "obviously not armed and dangerous" part, are the intruders wearing clothing? If they are, then their unarmed status is NOT obvious in any way, shape, or form.
You'd have a hard time arguing that before a jury, which is what ultimately counts, if someone wasn't threatening you with a deadly weapon.
Pro-life protesters don't mind being arrested for trespassing, etc. and are willing to take that chance. The RICO statutes, however were never designed to apply to political protests, and the fact that some liberal groups were arguing AGAINST their being applied to the pro-life groups underscored this.
This is far off topic, because the case concerned what constituted "extortion" under RICO, not what was legal self-defense. Legal self-defense is addressed by state law. Your statement doesn't hold in all jurisdictions, maybe not in any (as you phrased it).
In North Carolina, you cannot (legally) shoot someone who is in your house uninvited if he doesn't threaten you. (You can shoot him if you catch him forcing entry, but not if you find him already inside.) In many other states, if someone is inside your house uninvited, he's presumed to have evil intent and you have no "duty to retreat" (even if he wandered in through an unlocked door).
But the rules are different for a place of business -- which an abortion mill is -- during business hours. Otherwise, a store proprietor could simply sit by the door shooting people he didn't like as they came in the door, on the grounds of "self-defense."
You cannot compare a so-called 'trespasser' in a clinic to someone invading your private residence.