AZ legislature moves to permit landowners the use deadly force against threatening

What possesses a leftist “progressive” to maintain the completely irrational desire to only, and always defend the guilty? Why, no matter the topic, can you guarantee that the leftist will see the downtrodden and guiltless, and hate him for his situation? (Every sensible American ought to stop and ponder this.) Case in point is April Rubin writing for Axios:

Arizona Republicans are advancing a bill that would allow people to legally kill someone accused of attempting to trespass or actively trespassing on their property. 

The big picture: The legislation, which is expected to be vetoed if it reaches the state’s Democratic governor, would legalize the murder of undocumented immigrants, who often have to cross ranches that sit on the state’s border with Mexico.

Now, bless her heart, but Rubin didn’t get it quite right, and left out some pertinent information; here is the actual text from the bill itself:

What this bill would actually do, is amend existing law to extend the Castle Doctrine to include all of a person’s property (land), not just their abode; it doesn’t seek to amend the existing law that defines what justifies the use of deadly force, as noted in “13-405 and 13-406” of the state’s code. Currently, you may only use deadly force against a trespasser (as long as it’s legally justified per the aforementioned code) if they’re actually inside a dwelling structure, but for ranchers along the border who tend to cattle upon open pastures, the current law leaves them vulnerable to criminal charges.

Okay, but beside the fact that she totally missed the mark on the actual factual breakdown of the proposed legislation, Rubin used a phrase I found rather astounding: “legalize the murder”… as if legalizing murder is now suddenly a bad thing. Because before, leftist regressives like Rubin told us that legalized murder was actually a “right to privacy” issue, a women’s rights battle, reproductive justice and/or freedom, etc.

In fact, I’ve even heard many of these legalized murder proponents accuse a baby conceived by the formers’ consensual actions as being… a trespasser, simply because that little one has the audacity to exist while unwanted.

Then, then that mother has the absolute right to deadly force, because her life is threatened; with a baby, how can continue to celebrate her sexual liberation? “Deadly force” is completely acceptable once her “single living” lifestyle (read, self-serving whoredom) hangs in the balance. As long as the intruder is… a baby, who had absolutely no involvement in his/her creation, then it’s perfectly acceptable to go scorched earth.

Once that that innocent baby’s presence feels like… an infringement, the leftist regressive has zero qualms about using deadly force to neutralize the perceived threat—but not with bullet like a rancher would have, the leftist is happy to butcher this “trespasser,” ripping off his limbs or face, letting him bleed out, and eventually expire in a pile of body parts. Oh, and after this little trespasser is dealt with, the leftist regressive throws a party to celebrate his demise.

Ignorance is apparently bliss, but we conservatives wouldn’t know anything about that, and it’s not bliss for those of us who are forced to coexist with this painfully ignorant crowd.

Progressives melt into fits of hyperbolic (and inaccurate) hysterics over the possibility that Americans might be legally sanctioned to protect themselves from harm, while completely oblivious to the laughably hypocritical position they hold on abortion.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.