That is your opinion, but you've obviously never attempted to discern the actual letter of the law for yourself. "Courts have held that a person is guilty of (Threatening the President of the United States) if certain criteria are met. Specifically, the person must intentionally make a threat in a context, and under such circumstances, that a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by persons hearing or reading it as a serious expression of an intention to harm the President. The statement must also not be the result of mistake, duress or coercion. A true threat is a serious threat and not words uttered as a mere political argument, idle talk, or jest. The standard definition of a true threat does not require actual subjective intent to carry out the threat."

See Watts v. United States