If you're going to say that someone is "a threat to democracy" then you should be specific. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and all that. Charlie Kirk most certainly was not a threat to democracy. Many many loonies in this thread.
And by the way, if someone can be "a threat to democracy" then surely it's also possible that someone could commit electoral fraud. I.e., if you and others here are so upset at those who say that 2020 was rife with electoral fraud as to call them "threats to democracy", then surely those people are equally justified in saying that the electoral fraud they think took place was itself a threat to democracy (as were the people who might have perpetrated it).
You really can't have it both ways.
This way of "I'm justified, you're not" lies madness. Stop it.