No sir. I deny with your attempts to force a faulty and incorrect definition on me. It is *YOU* sir who are attempting to restrict freedom by attacking part of it's foundation.
You are trying to fabricate a false and deadly "freedom" to indulge what is obviously an extremist libertarian streak in yourself. You are the sort that will throw a rock at the Hornets nest and then blame the Hornets for stinging you.
"Freedom" is a civil construct, and within the scope of our society it implies a set of generally understood rules regarding personal space and bodily integrity.
Threatening the life of a governing official exceeds the framework we know as "freedom" within a civil society.
To give you a better grasp of the concept, only a King is "free" to do whatever he wants. Normal people must respect other people's right to live and be "free" too, and threatening to kill them is a breach of the implicit contract that civil society exerts on it's members.
If you want to behave like a barbarian, it is reasonable to treat you like one and toss you in a cage. You breach the social contract and your loss of freedom is on you.
I am fabricating nothing. I'm defending the #FirstAmendment using recent court case law.
The rest of your post seems to be an argument that we need to give up a little freedom for a little temporary safety. I reject that.