Not much. But define "threat".

Normally and actually yes; in court still yes but, more of a gray area. If you feel your life's in danger you have every right to protect it. But, legally you must be able to prove you felt YOUR life to be in danger..not "I beat them because they didn't agree with me", or "they were wearing a shirt I didn't like"

These 'buttercups' of today think if they get mad they are free to act out in violence are showing how wrong society and their parents were raising them.


Not punishing them for doing hurtful things, giving them awards for basically doing nothing and blaming the child's failures on the teacher, minister, coach, babysitter or neighbor was/is wrong!

Yes, as the Declaration of Independence says we "..are created equal," but that never meant we all 'deserve' the same things. Sally may want $1 million dollars, Johnny $500 thousand and Julie may just want a house and a mini van; yes we are born equal, but we will have a very different "..Pursuit of Happiness.."

So too those 'precious little snowflakes'; get over yourself and grow up!

Not really. Either one will get you punched by me. Haha!

"Which brings me to the observation that an armed society is a polite society."

Amen to that.

The dangerous concept of "hate crimes" is terrifying. As a crime victim I DO NOT CARE why the perpetrator victimized me? If the violent person is screaming racial, gender based, homophobic epithets while beating me, I don't care. They may not have any basis in reality. The murder the other day of the police officer seems to have been someone who was "just mad" and looking for a target. That cop, nor from what I've read, any cop, had nothing to do with his agitation and decision to murder someone. In our legal system we have concepts that come into play at the point of sentencing, aggravating and mitigating circumstances. After a fair trial the sentencing body evaluates any and all aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances and weighs those components at that time. If someone "hates" someone else, that is not morally and should not be legally a crime. If s/he acts on that hatred and is convicted of doing so, then the judge/jury can take that into consideration. Frankly I'm much more concerned that people with potentially dangerous ideas are forced to be quiet, thus may become more likely to act on their hatred than if we allowed them to vent and then just laughed at their idiotic ideas. Almost always when we catch a serial killer people who knew him are surprised, even perplexed, that s/he could commit such crimes as s/he was always quiet or shy, or at least did not voice his beliefs that lead to murder and mayhem. yes, there is a difference. There probably is a difference between a verbal threat and a behavioral threat. Which brings me to the observation that an armed society is a polite society.

And yet they can't even execute calm, rational thought when in the absence of an imminent life treat.

Think what you want.

Why me dino the retired corrections officer will watch my back in parking lots.
Always try to stay out of the range of a sucker punch.
Keep your hands somewhat before you in public but appear to be relaxed.
Do not become too distracted by that Christmas gift you're buying. Always know what's going on around you.

"...what Jefferson suggested might work but in the 2016 it will not..." The history of the 20th and early 21st centuries are rife with revolutions successful or not. The size and strength of the governments involved did not seem to have a preventative effect. When the revolutionaries sensed that the governments only reason for continued existence was holding onto power, they attacked. Wasn't that the same reason the founding fathers revolted in 1776?

Why didn't Americans revolt in 1913 with the passage of the 16th and 17 Amendments?

Maybe you missed it, a threat is only a threat. yes you can attack if the threat is so obvious you will be violently attacked. an attack is a violent act in and of itself.
as for bringing in the government of the early 1800's what Jefferson suggested might work but in the 2016 it will not. Our government is on a mission to socialize the nation and we have the demo's and repub's to thank for that. they are in lock step and I do not believe for one moment that the course will change with trump.

I'm noo surprised. Threats, depending on who is making them, should be taken seriously, but usually it doesn't happen during discussion. An exception is Pearl Harbor. However, an actual threat was never made which is why it was called a sneak attack.

Of course there is a difference. And depending on context and degree, there are several differences.

What is the 2nd Amendment if not a threat of violence?

But that is a peaceful response (non initiatory force) that would hopefully avoid the violence or offense threatened by reasoned observation, passed actions or outright stated actions to be taken.

How ever...I'd hate to see this taken to the nth degree...example...a father telling his kid that he'd knock his head off if he does X. You know liberals would take that far.

When a threat is made to your face, never show your back.
I know someone who got himself murdered doing that. Knew, I mean.

And "intent to kill"???

Often, threats of violence are made without the slightest intention of follow-through. As long as they keep talking everyone is safe, even though the talk is often downright silly. North Korea, for example, knows that if they actually send a missile to anyone, Israel, S. Korea, USA, there would be little left of them but a radioactive crater. Yes, even under Obama, but especially under Trump.

Why do you think you go to jail for extortion (threat of violence)?

I don't believe there is a difference. In either case, I have a right to use force to prevent you from carrying out the threat or committing violence to retaliate against you for punching me in the nose. The real question is do I have the same right in my relationship with the government? Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence wrote "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...". If I cannot alter it peacefully at the ballot box, then should I not also have the right to abolish it by violence?

As I've posted here last in my long-winded nostalgic fashion.
Not only do you not die, you do not even get a scratch.

I'm reminded of the old adage,"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Only recently has the concern over hurtful words been so ridiculously elevated, with the current generation of fragile snowflakes needing their "safe spaces" where they are protected from ideas that apparently can critically injure their sensitive psyches.

The obsession over "hate speech" endangers free speech. You may not like what someone says, and the police are always accommodating if someone threatens violence against you, which does have legal repercussion.

There are differences in how reactions to threats are perceived in some states. Someone entering your home uninvited can be sufficient grounds for use of deadly force in many states, perceived as a threat of possible violence to you or your family. In other states, blowing away an unarmed intruder can be determined to be the use of "excessive force," and you get carted away. Gun control folk make the irrational demand for calm, rational thought in the presence of fear for one's life, and incomplete information.

Well.....with the threat of violence, no one dies.

If you are talking philosophically, I would argue no. A threat is a use of coercion. A threat is a pre-meditated act, which in my mind makes it even more of a crime than a reactant use of force.

Correct. Battery is physical harm and intent is not usually necessary for conviction. Assault is a threat only and two elements must be proved for it to constitute real assault: that the accused was capable of physically harming the victim and that there was an immediate threat made. I can tell you a million times that I'll get you "some day" and that will never constitute true Assault - but it probably will establish intent and history if I ever actually do carry out the threat. Same thing if someone threatens me with a knife from 100 feet away: it isn't actually a credible threat until the person closes the distance substantially. That being said, never point a gun at someone EVER, as this can almost always be interpreted as assault unless it is done in defense (after being assaulted by another party).

If I tell you I am going to punch you in the face that is a threat. However, if I walk up to you and punch you in the face, that is violence.
Tell me is there a difference?