The Conservative is an idiot though. The Constitution says the government must not limit your right to bear arms. State law defines what constitutes self-defense, which was the ACTUAL issue in that trial: did he have a STATE-LAW right to use arms the way he did under the circumstances. (Obviously, the answer was “yes.”) Plus, I’m sure millions of ding-dongs of all political stripes are certain they know how different trials should play out based on their “research,” but reading a few articles and tweets is nothing like being in court and having it all presented to you in one burst, and I mean ALL of it, not just what media outlets both (1) can find out and (2) want you to know about. You should never claim to know all the facts about a case if you’re only present as a potential juror, but of course the follow-on conclusion is the same as Posobiec makes, that you should not try to eliminate yourself as a juror on that basis. Same conclusion, different reasoning.