I have seen some discussion of whether the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabriel Giffords and the assassination of Judge John Roll constitutes terrorism.
It does, under both the common definition and the legal definitinos under US law.
Therefore, the organizations which supported it have supported the perpetrators in this act are terrorist organizations.
Therefore, those who have advocated this kind of action have advocated terrorism.
The question remains what will be done about it. I expect Eric Holder is trying to decide this at this very moment.
Just a quick primer:
As a matter of the definition of the term, terrorism is the attempt to achieve political outcomes through the use of violence as a mechanism to induce fear and to intimidate political opponents.
Under US law, as amended by the Patriot Act,
(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
18 USC 2331(5)
I think it is clear that the under US law this qualifies. Perhaps if I had to defend this, prong (B) would be the weakest aspect.
Frankly, I can see no way to define this as anything else. It might be a terrorist act of a single deranged mind, but it is indisputable that the intent of the violence is to intimidate and change the political course of this country through violence.
The shooter sure didn't shoot Rep. Giffords out of some personal or other animus. He shot her for political reasons and to intimidate the rest of us (say, Raul Grijalva comes to mind).
This is definitely terrorism.
Now, it is time for us to talk about this in a legally accurate perspective and insist others do as well. We should also be clear that those who use terms such as "second amendment rememdies" or having people in their "sights" should be taken at their literal word and be called out for advocating terrorism.
For that's what it is.