That's certainly a problem but it's not "terrorism".

That term has become widely misused to carve out more power for civil "ath-or-i-tay".

Terrorism or "terroristic threats" do not actually come into play in bar fights, domestic disputes, social media name calling, or even routine criminal activities. IMO there needs to be an intent and capability to assault and disrupt our collective society at some level, as opposed to simply targeting an individual or group over a personal or business dispute. We already have laws for the later, and we don't need to end-run around civil rights to enforce them.

The term Terrorism and associated laws should be restricted to probably three categories:

Weapons of mass destruction (nuclear prompt super-critical): This would apply only to a credible threat that a functioning nuclear bomb will be employed. No civil rights here, immediate and full-capability response by the DoD (national special mission teams). Kill 'em all and let the relevant diety sort 'em out.

Weapons of mass destruction (other): Threats capable of causing loss of life in the hundreds (or perhaps thousands?)...ie 9/11, large conventional explosives, dirty bomb, etc. All national means, including intelligence will be employed. The emphasis is on prevention, not prosecution or protection of sources and means. Civil rights respected in the aftermath.

Weapons of moderate destruction: Less capable threats, invcluding small bombs, and most chemical and biological agents. This is not going to bring western civilization to a screeching halt so take the long-term view...respect civil rights (US citizens at home), protect intelligence sources, proceed methodically.

Almost by definition, terrorism should be a federal issue...no need for state/local "terrorism" laws to prosecute teenagers who make threats (or jokes) on facebook. County mounties can play a supporting role, ie manning the barricades and roadblocks while the feds do the heavy-lifting.