The US democracy is not threatened by violence against any single building or even most sets of people.
Had they burned the building to the ground and somehow caused the deaths of everyone inside, the US democracy would continue. They did not achieve anything remotely close to that.
There is no basis for calling some angry rioters smashing windows and smoking pot "a substantial threat to democracy". None.
Protests that turn destructive are bad, no doubt about it. But the hyperbole is painful.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/black-panthers-california-196...
They came armed (nominal, as they went armed everywhere) to a peaceful prearranged meeting at the statehouse. The media turned it into a crazy narrative because black men carrying long arms were photographed inside the statehouse.
Sadly, I am becoming quite used to being disappointed in my countrymen.
Group A gets treated unfairly w.r.t how group B is treated.
Clearly the welcome outcome is that group A becomes treated justly, at least as justly as group B.
Yet, some members of group A wouldn't mind that at, if that option were not on the table, group B were treated at least as badly as group A. It's stupid, it's counterproductive, but hey, humans...
When group A sees another instance of group B being treated (again) better than how group A would have been treated in those circumstances, I think it's not surprising how people can get a tad angry and when you're angry, your thoughts wonder a little bit more on the dark side, right?
When some people from abroad kill people in your soil, it's quite understandable that people get angry and talk about bringing pain to people in the countries where these attackers come from. It's that "right"? Will that create a better world? Clearly if you just found a way for that never happening again, that would be enough right? The sense of "punishment" is so deeply ingrained in our nature; it's not a prerogative of part of the political spectrum.
As far as revolutions go, this one was... understaffed.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jamiefox1/status/1346972712670011...
Disagree on that point. Allowing riots creates a lot of anger on the other side of the political isle. Also, the rioters are often not representative of the majority of protestors and undermine the entire movement (think about the BLM rioters' impact on how the overall movement was perceived). They also often lead to a violation of rights; property destruction, assaults, deaths, etc. Almost nobody - on any side - wants a small number of thugs to run the show.
Our collective goal should always be to resolve the conditions that lead to rioting. But when a riot occurs it should be stopped and dispersed as safely and expediently as possible.
And the senate floor isn't a particularly important piece of ground to hold (when the Senators are not there at least).
Expending lots of resources and good will smashing what was essentially theatre-- wouldn't have been a good move.
If only we treated more protests like that: Stood back and people show their anger, then move on with our lives -- message heard-- with minimal injury and damage.
[I'm aware that a protester was shot and killed inside the capitol building -- but relative the scope of the event, I think it's still fair to characterize it as that way]
FWIW, the Capitol building is normally substantially open to the public.