It can be both simultaneously true that the current administration and its supporters are genuinely dangerous to our democracy and that political violence is not an acceptable way to effect social change.

Yes, it's true that lunatics on both sides may use their side's rhetoric as a call to action but often this isn't even the case and they're just hopelessly confused and mentally ill people. It'd be nice if we lived in a society where those people couldn't get guns or could get mental health treatment and it'd be nice if one side of this debate didn't weaponize these common sense ideas into identity politics but here we are.

If they really were such a danger why did the opposing party not try to save it with a democratically elected candidate instead of forcing an unpopular one down people’s throat?

politicial violence in this case will be quite effective in terms of later voting results - kirk was a good story teller who could get people enthusiastic about ideas. attempts to make it such that a similar event dont happen again will be much more likely to succeed now that hes dead than they were while he was alive

Is it bad to be a threat to democracy? Some people hold a point of view that there is something other than democracy serves their agenda better. I don't agree but it's actually a popular point of view. Are we supposed to be so afraid to point that out that we censor ourselves?