I use terms that are thrown around all the time, but in general, we fundamentally no longer understand them.

"That laws could exist that could lead to the direct death of another is something that legitimate people of good faith now no longer understand" - ???

There are people that are good people who believe in this country and their laws, and do not see other citizens as enemies. These are people who act in good faith.

These people are legitimately shocked that said laws, enacted as originally intended, would allow someone like Kyle to be there with a gun, which results in two people dying, and Kyle is set free.

It makes no sense to them, because they have a fundamental change in value. That value is the value of life vs. property (the pursuit of happiness, as the founders wrote it).

To them, life is always of higher value from property. They do not all of a sudden want the country to burn, and for our institutions to be destroyed (those would be bad faith actors)

Like I said from the outset - this case was a litmus test for values. Not understanding of law. Legitimate people of good faith understand that Kyle followed the law, but they believe that justice did not occur because their value statement suggests that some punishment needed to be wrought to Kyle.

Why? Because, fundamentally, he defended firstly the community and property, which is what resulted in his needing to defend himself. To those people, Kyle needed to be punished.

After all, had he not been there to defend property, two more people would have been alive. And life is of a higher value than property to said people.