Have some mixed feelings on the matter, but generally would say yes I support such. If someone breaks into your residence and especially at night, chances are they mean you no good. People should feel safe in their homes, and should not have to worry about facing legal trouble should the need arise to use force to protect oneself and one's property. Could there be potential abuses, such as someone using force when it might not really be warranted? I'd guess so, but still think the pros outweigh potential cons. Self defense, assuming it is indeed unavoidable, is instinctual.

If it was just me im not too worried about it, but if my family is in danger I believe in ending the threat as fast as possible. Im very progressive in most things but when it comes to defending my loved ones, i want to be armed and have the law on my side

A "stand your ground" law only means that a person being threatened or attacked is not obligated to try and retreat. It recognizes the right of self-defense. Some people portray these laws as some kind of hunting license; they're not.

Of course if there's an alternative to force, any gun owner is obligated to take that option if reasonably possible. Any prosecutor's office will look very hard at the circumstances of a civilian shooting incident. But the key is whether it's reasonably possible to retreat or escape a situation. For someone like me, older and not in the best shape, trying to run from an aggressor would only get me caught from behind, which is actually more dangerous. So (in the hope-it-never-happens event of a confrontation) I would look for an obstacle to put between me and them, some route to back away to a safer place, use verbal de-escalation to try to talk my way out of the situation- but if none of that works and someone comes at me, and I am in reasonable fear for my life or serious injury, all bets are off. That's what "stand your ground" means.