OK you're going to say only a minority of the Capitol invaders had such thoughts, but that's the same with BLM "rioters" as well (what you're obviously refering to).
When the protestors were outside hearing the president speak it was a protest. When they tried to storm the capitol it was an insurrection.
There are clear, easy lines to be drawn. People don't draw these lines though because they want to further their political agenda.
I don’t think what happened at the Capitol was a monolith either. There were 10,000s of people in DC that day and only 100s (?) entered the Capitol illegally.
So, it’s entirely similar to what happened over the summer with BLM where there were 10,000s of peaceful protestors and 100s of violent rioters.
While there have been a few assassinations of police since the BLM riots started years ago, I'm not aware of any overt attacks on the persons in politics by the right. Obviously this is fairly fresh, so we'll see, but my point is there's talk and then there's action.
This is just a point of curiosity, not affirmations of the actions at the capitol. The plot against the Michigan governor by the right-wing anarchists strikes me as a much more credible threat than what occurred at the capitol, even though the latter is spoken about with some sort of future-telling confidence.
Then again, most of the Q-Anon Capitol invasion force is probably like that too.
My thought is, they were a huge mob goading each other. I do remember noticing some people trying to stop others who were breaking stuff, so surely some of them thought they were going there to just be heard, but others went in seemingly ready to kidnap people. But the mob mentality could've lead to someone getting beaten to death.