A 'threat'? Hardly
Since when is it a "threat" to tell a known aggressor "if you attack me, I will fight back"?
David Codrea got accused of making that sort of "threat" recently, and I have been the target of the same accusation several times in the past. It seems some people's definitions have gotten a bit topsy-turvy.
It serves the forces of coercion very well to threaten to "tax" me, and then when I say "no, if you try I will defend myself" to start whining that I have made a threat. Sorry, but the thief who announces his intention to rob me has made the threat. If he follows through he has set a series of events in motion, and he may not be pleased with the end results.
The same goes for those who announce their intention to violate any of my rights (for example, those who attempt to take my property against my will by the above-mentioned "taxation" and will threaten to kidnap me if I don't comply, or those who try to change rights into privileges). It matters not if the one making the threats is the one thinking up the "law" or the one whose "job" it is to enforce that "law". A threat is a threat, and an attack is an attack. The target of the attack has no obligation to allow the attack to succeed, no matter what the "law" may be. And stating that aggression will be met with resistance or defensive force is not a "threat".
