Former President Donald Trump's statements regarding Project 2025 have sparked varied reactions, significantly impacting his support base. MIG Reports analysis shows:

• Hardcore supporters see his disavowal as consistent with his style, maintaining loyalty and denouncing mainstream media and Democratic opposition.
• Critics and undecided voters are increasingly skeptical of Trump's inconsistencies, viewing him as untrustworthy and fearing potential rollbacks of rights and liberties.

Trending Discussions

Is Trump’s Influence Dangerous for Democracy?

Much of the discourse centers on the perceived risks of Trump's influence on American democracy. Critics argue his actions and rhetoric undermine democratic institutions and processes, fostering concerns about potential authoritarian tendencies.

Potential Consequences of Project 2025

Discussions are rife with fear about the implications of Project 2025, as critics warn it could lead to a rollback of rights and liberties. They fear it may revert societal progress to a pre-1960s framework. This has sparked alarm among progressive groups and civil rights advocates.

Trump vs. Biden Crisis Management

There is considerable debate comparing the crisis management abilities of Trump and President Biden. Supporters of Biden argue he represents stability and a safeguard against authoritarianism. Trump supporters highlight Biden's increasingly public vulnerabilities and inconsistencies.

Legitimacy of Biden’s Election Victory

The legitimacy of Biden's election victory remains a hot topic, with a growing percentage of Republicans expressing doubts about its validity. This trend is concerning for those who worry about the erosion of trust in the electoral process.

Trending Sentiment

Staunch Trump Supporters

Among hardcore Trump supporters, sentiment remains either stable or slightly increased. This group tends to rally around Trump in the face of criticism, reinforcing their loyalty and denouncing mainstream media and Democratic opposition as sources of misinformation.

Skepticism Among Critics and Undecided Voter

Critics of Trump and undecided voters exhibit growing skepticism towards him, particularly considering his inconsistencies regarding Project 2025. This group perceives Trump as increasingly untrustworthy, which has intensified their opposition.

Potential Voter Shift

The complex scenario reflects a potential shift in voter sentiment. While Trump’s loyal base may solidify turnout, indecisive and moderate voters are leaning away from him. Additionally, internal Democratic critiques and concerns about Biden's campaign capabilities could lead some 2020 Biden voters to seek alternative candidates unless effectively addressed by the Democratic party.

Anti-Trump Positions

Trump detractors often link Project 2025 to extreme, regressive policies like the suppression women's rights and the degradation of social security. This stokes fears of a return to a severely constrained society. This camp is deeply concerned about Trump's association with authoritarian tendencies and potential threats to democracy.

The trend of job report numbers consistently being revised down is revealing a worse job market to Americans who are unhappy. Many feel deceived by the initial reports indicating a more robust job market, only for them to be corrected later to reveal a less optimistic reality—which more closely aligns with many workers’ experiences.

There is a growing sense of distrust and frustration towards the agencies and media sources reporting current job figures. People feel misled and uncertain about the true state of the job market, which complicates personal and financial planning.

JUST IN: The unemployment rate has ticked up to 4.1%, going over 4% for the first time since November 2021.

- 74% of jobs added last month came from government and healthcare education.

- May jobs were revised down from 272K to 218K.

- April jobs were revised down from 165K to… pic.twitter.com/gHtXhW9EtP

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 5, 2024

Anger Over Job Growth Only in Government

One viral topic around jobs includes news that most of the new job creations were government and education jobs. For many Americans, this has multiple implications on their perception of economic health and labor market dynamics.

In general, reactions are negative. Many interpret this as a sign of an economy relying too much on government intervention rather than private sector growth. They say it’s indicative of a stagnant private sector that is being choked by inflation and regulation.

Government employment is typically considered more stable, implying a potential increase in job security for those lucky enough to secure these roles. However, an economy heavily tilted towards government employment makes many workers feel that unnecessary jobs are being artificially created instead of driven by private sector growth.

Some also claim these government jobs are created specifically to pad job numbers.

This is how the Biden Department of Labor is fudging the data now: all job openings are government. pic.twitter.com/udxQSeKj0f

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 2, 2024

Many people are doubtful about the sustainability and impact of government job creation. They say an increase in government jobs does not create a healthy, flourishing economy. They also point out the rising unemployment rates among certain demographic groups, questioning the effectiveness of the administration's policies.

Arguments Over “Black Jobs”

A particularly contentious point of conversation is around employment for black Americans. During the first presidential debate, Donald Trump used the term to underscore issues like job displacement due to illegal immigration or underemployment in black communities.

On social media, this controversy led to heated debates over terms like "black jobs" and "black unemployment," illustrating the divide in how different groups interpret and discuss labor market outcomes. Democrats and progressives took the opportunity to criticize Trump for differentiating “black jobs” in their own category.

Republicans mostly reacted by highlighting the rise in black unemployment rates over the past year, despite reported overall job growth. They allege the gains in government jobs are not translating into meaningful employment opportunities for black workers.

Voters on the right argue Trump’s main point was to highlight unemployment specifically within the black community. They assert discussing "black jobs" is merely a way to highlight employment opportunities and challenges faced by black Americans, akin to other demographic-specific economic indicators.

Preferences for the Trump Economy

Trump supporters of all racial and ethnic backgrounds express a strong belief that the job market was at its peak during Trump’s administration. They especially point to black unemployment rates. They cite figures showing black unemployment hit a record low of 5.3% in 2019 under Trump. These supporters often frame their arguments around the belief that illegal immigration is undercutting job opportunities for black Americans.

They maintain that Trump’s administration ushered in significant gains for minority employment, despite sharp rises in unemployment during COVID. To conservatives, Biden’s tenure has not continued these successes. They say economic recovery, especially for black Americans, has been dismal.

Conversely, Biden supporters and liberals accuse Trump and his constituents of using racially charged rhetoric to pit black Americans against immigrants. They point to the record lows in black unemployment achieved under Biden administration in 2023 as evidence that Biden is improving the job market for black Americans.

Democrats highlight investments in infrastructure and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) as part of a broader strategy that includes focusing on economic development and community welfare. Many liberal voices decry the term “black jobs” as racially insensitive and misleading. They emphasize that job creation and employment statistics should not be segregated by race.

In recent discussions about First Lady Jill Biden, opinions vary significantly across social media platforms and online forums. Conversations often focus on her role in the Biden administration, her initiatives, and her public appearances. Sentiments range from positive admiration to critical scrutiny.

The Vogue Feature

Jill Biden's feature story in Vogue Magazine elicited a strong response from both supporters and critics. Admirers laud the article, which portrays Jill Biden as a compassionate, hard-working, and influential figure. For her supporters, the Vogue piece reaffirms their positive view of her as a dignified and effective First Lady.

Critics perceive the Vogue feature as an attempt to glamorize her role and deflect from the administration's shortcomings. They argue the coverage is overly favorable and ignores pressing issues such as inflation, immigration, and healthcare, viewing it as a distraction from more critical political debates.

Some also criticize rumors and allegations that Jill Biden is pushing Joe Biden to stay in the presidential race, even among Democratic calls for him to step down. Some pointed to a quote from Jill Biden in the Vogue article talking about the thrill of power as a sign of her undue influence and desperation to stay in the White House.

This is so wildly out of touch that I can’t believe it’s real https://t.co/UE5f0Cwc1x pic.twitter.com/UbZiowj5go

— brit (@pashedmotatos) July 1, 2024

American Views of Dr. Jill

Discussion trends about Jill Biden show a clear divide among the American public. Positive sentiments are generally related to her professional achievements, advocacy work, and personal demeanor. However, negative sentiments often focus on her perceived political influence and media portrayal.

A recent Vogue Magazine cover story featuring the First Lady exemplifies this divide, serving as a cultural touchstone evoking strong reactions from both sides of the political spectrum.

Support

Many people express admiration for Jill Biden's dedication to education and her work as a professor while serving as First Lady. Commentators and supporters frequently highlight her ability to balance professional responsibilities with her duties as the First Lady, seeing her as a positive role model. This sentiment is especially prevalent among educators and working professionals who draw inspiration from her commitment to her career.

Her public engagements and initiatives, such as advocating for military families and promoting community colleges, generally receive favorable comments. Voters often praise these initiatives for their focus on education, health, and family support—issues that resonate with a broad segment of the population.

Criticism

However, there is also a noticeable current of criticism, particularly around her involvement in political and policy discussions. Detractors argue her policy influence oversteps traditional boundaries for the role of First Lady. Critics are quick to scrutinize her speeches and public statements, looking for inconsistencies or political biases. These critiques frequently merge with broader criticisms of the Biden administration, reflecting polarized views on the current political landscape.

Many also suggest Jill Biden could be a key figure running the current administration, as more Americans adopt the belief that Joe Biden is too old and infirm to be running the country. Some suggest Jill Biden’s actions and speeches betray a willingness to commit elder abuse against her own husband who is obviously not in a state of vigor.

These sentiments also come on the heels of criticisms toward the presidential couple for a clip of Jill Biden encouraging Joe after the debate. Many people pointed to the praise as condescending both to Joe Biden and the American people.

Jill Biden is certifiably terrifying

All while Joe sits and waits for his juicebox pic.twitter.com/WDn3kZZ0ZE

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) June 28, 2024

Crypto news recently surfaced that on-chain transactions show a wallet linked to the U.S. government transferred 3,940 bitcoins to the popular crypto exchange Coinbase. This is generating a lot of discussion online and speculation about whether the United States plans to sell large amounts of Bitcoin.

Some crypto investors speculate the transfer may indicate the government plans to liquidate assets, possibly to stabilize the market or address financial needs. This possibility generates significant controversy since the U.S. government still holds a massive reserve of approximately 213,546 Bitcoin, currently valued at around $12.9 billion. Some fear that, if the U.S. government floods the market with its Bitcoin holdings, it will drive the price down dramatically.

Why the U.S. Government Holds Bitcoin

The U.S. government holds Bitcoin primarily through seizures from criminal investigations involving activities like drug trafficking, money laundering, and cybercrime. Government agencies confiscate assets during enforcement actions or obtain crypto through asset surrender. At times, the U.S. Marshals Service has auctioned seized bitcoin, converting it to cash for various government functions.

Voter perception of the government's bitcoin holdings is mixed. Some Americans appreciate it as a sign of effective law enforcement against cybercriminals, while others may view it as draconian and unjustified for the government to benefit from digital assets it is hostile to.

Many people call for greater transparency in how these assets are managed and how the proceeds are utilized. Some also argue confiscated crypto should be burned or left dormant like confiscated drugs.

The Crypto Regulation Fight

The transfer has also sparked a broader debate on the regulatory and financial implications of government agencies using crypto exchanges. Investors are questioning whether this could lead to market volatility and how it reflects the government's stance on cryptocurrencies. Especially when many crypto holders feel perpetually frustrated at the lack of regulatory clarity in the United States.

The involvement of Coinbase, a major exchange currently in legal battles with the SEC, adds another layer of intrigue. Many crypto voters view the U.S. government as highly hypocritical for going after Coinbase on legal grounds, while at the same time utilizing its services.

A Reuters report stated, “The SEC sued Coinbase in June, saying the firm facilitated trading of at least 13 crypto tokens that should have been registered as securities and was operating illegally as a national securities exchange, broker and clearing agency without registering with the regulator.”

There is also ongoing legal action with Coinbase suing the SEC and FDIC for not honoring FOIA requests. The contentious and complicated relationship between the U.S. government and crypto exchanges like Coinbase seems to make Crypto users increasingly irate about government hypocrisy.

Reactions to Government Use of Bitcoin

At the same time, many in the crypto community see the government's accumulated Bitcoin as a testament to its resilience and increasing legitimacy. The fact that the government holds significant amounts of crypto, even if obtained through confiscations, indirectly validates the value and importance of digital currencies.

For some, government use of crypto tokens is a step towards broader acceptance and integration of cryptocurrencies within traditional financial and regulatory frameworks. It gives some hope that Bitcoin might someday be recognized not just as an asset, but as a potential medium for various financial transactions, including tax payments.

However, the majority of American crypto holders view Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as tools to undermine what they perceive as a corrupt or inefficient fiat-based financial system. They tend to view the government's possession of Bitcoin as ironic and hypocritical. It raises concerns about potential misuse or mismanagement of crypto markets and encourages national governments to continue targeting crypto holders as perceived threats.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a government censorship case is causing controversy online. SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in Murthy v. Missouri, declining to hear a lawsuit aimed at limiting the government's ability to communicate with social media companies about content moderation.

The majority decision asserted the plaintiffs lacked standing, as they couldn't show a concrete link between their claimed restrictions and government actions. The case involved claims the Biden administration's 2021 efforts to censor COVID-19 vaccine information infringed on free speech.

Americans React to the SCOTUS Decision

Many Americans express feelings of betrayal and disappointment, viewing this ruling as a failure to protect First Amendment rights. Voters believe free speech extends to online spaces, as it does in person. There are online expressions of anger and determination to legally challenge any perceived infringement.

Some voters voice concerns that SCOTUS is endorsing government overreach and censorship. They fear it will set a dangerous precedent for future government control over private entities and free speech.

However, others argue the Supreme Court's decision was less about endorsing censorship and more about the intrinsic legal standing of the plaintiffs. They view the ruling as an indication that the case was weak, rather than the Court's approval of government involvement in social media regulation.

People fear the potential future ramifications for free speech both online and offline. There are assertions this ruling may embolden the government to increasingly suppress opposition via surreptitious means. Many people say they hope other, more solid legal cases can be brought to SCOTUS which will address big tech and the government’s increasing encroachment on civil liberties.

Partisan Reactions to the Decision

Conservatives and proponents of free speech are disappointed, arguing the decision undermines the fight against government overreach and censorship. This group largely views social media platforms as essential public forums where free expression should be protected. They fear the government’s influence on these platforms is a dangerous lever of control over discourse and information. They believe in the strong likelihood of partisan regimes stifling dissenting opinions.

Some libertarian leaning voters, while also critical of the decision, focus more on the implications for private enterprise and autonomy. They argue social media companies should operate free of governmental pressures and be allowed to moderate content according to their policies and independent of any state influence. This perspective centers on the belief that private businesses should not be coerced by the state, maintaining that such intervention violates key principles of a free market.

Liberals and moderates tend to support the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing the government’s involvement with social media platforms is often necessary to mitigate the spread of misinformation and harmful content. They view it as especially important during critical times like elections or public health crises.

For most Democrats, the primary concern is preventing what they deem as misinformation, which they believe can undermine democratic processes and foment social discord. They trust government oversight will safeguard the public interest and ensure social media does not become a breeding ground for radicalism.

Debates About SCOTUS Corruption

The decision also intensified ongoing political and ideological struggles, particularly from liberals, about a biased Supreme Court. There are many references to Trump's influence on the Court via his nominations. This rhetoric from Democrats fuels debates about the lasting impacts of SCOTUS appointments.

However, amid Democrat lamentations of a biased or corrupt court, conservative commenters say this ruling debunks the idea that Supreme Court Justices are in Trump’s pocket. Many argue that, if the court was biased, they would not have declined this censorship case.

Democrats and liberals push narratives and Biden administration talking points claiming a successful and healthy economy with strong jobs performance. But working Americans who feel the effects of inflation and layoffs experience a different reality. While trying to remain hopeful for the future, many voters also voice longing for the economy and markets prior to COVID.

MIG Reports data shows emerging discussions about layoffs and firings with sentiment driven by ongoing political and economic conditions in Biden’s economy. This dialogue appears to be concentrated around several themes:

• The U.S. economy under Biden versus Trump
• Unemployment rates
• Inflation
• Legislation around job creation and layoffs

What Americans Are Saying

America’s economic performance frequently dominates voter conversations. People compare the achievements of Presidents Biden and Trump on the economy. There are many references to record-low unemployment rates and the two presidents’ respective economic policies, especially during and after COVID.

The COVID era brought extreme volatility to employment statistics, which continues to influence public sentiment. For example, there is frequent mention of the record high unemployment during Trump's term due to lockdowns. People also talk about how economic recovery has gone under Biden—specifically low unemployment rates.

Sentiment Trends

Attitudes about jobs and layoffs show a strong partisan divide. Biden supporters emphasize the reported low unemployment rates, stabilized inflation, significant investments in infrastructure, and legislative successes such as the CHIPS Act and lowered insulin prices.

Trump supporters highlight the unparalleled economic growth during his tenure prior to COVID, citing low taxes, high stock market performance, and strong GDP growth. Both sides seem to view the economy as much better during their preferred candidate’s presidency.

This political polarization is underscored by mutual accusations of economic mismanagement. Each side attributes positive or negative outcomes selectively to their favored administration.

Demographic Patterns

Discussions about layoffs and unemployment rates cut across various groups, but certain patterns emerge. Minorities, particularly African American and Hispanic communities, are noted for achieving historically low unemployment rates under both administrations. This serves as a focal point in debates about the effectiveness of each administration’s economic policies.

Industry Trends

Many discussions about jobs refer specifically to the manufacturing and energy sectors. This suggests wider concerns about job security in traditional blue-collar jobs. Voter focus on these industries confirms the importance of political platforms that heavily emphasize revitalizing American manufacturing. Workers want to ensure energy independence, which is touted as critical for job creation and economic stability.

Geographical Conversations

States like Mississippi, Kansas, and North Dakota come up frequently in job discussions. Reports cite Mississippi's record-low unemployment alongside the lowest labor force participation rate. This suggests a nuanced economic landscape where job growth does not necessarily equate to broader economic health.

Kansas shows slight changes in employment metrics, maintaining a middle ground in job growth across states. North Dakota’s energy production and high GDP per capita also get attention, highlighting its robust economic performance.

WARN Data

MIG Reports analysis of data from the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act revealed some interesting patterns. WARN notices are filed by employers announcing mass layoffs or plant closures. The dataset for 2024 year-to-date shows 2,247 layoff notices which affected 183,454 employees. That equates to an average of 82 workers per company layoff notice.

Some additional layoff trends include:

There is a significant spike of WARN notice activity in January of 2024, indicating a high number of layoffs planned at the beginning of the year. The number of WARN notices fluctuates across different months with noticeable peaks and troughs.

California has the highest number of WARN notices by a significant margin. Other states with a notable number of WARN notices include Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois.

Julian Assange’s release from HM Prison Belmarsh in London on June 24th ignited a firestorm on social media. Assange’s plea deal with U.S. prosecutors has generally been met with enthusiasm from free-speech crowds. However, online discourse cascades into deeper conversations about more than just Julian Assange.

MIG Reports data shows the discourse around Assange's release generates intense debates over free speech, freedom of the press, global politics, and government transparency. Much of the conversation is shaped by political orientation and national identity.

How People Are Reacting to Assange’s Freedom

Much of the online conversation celebrates Assange's release as a victory for freedom of the press and free speech. Many Americans praise Assange for his role in exposing government secrets and misconduct. They view him as a hero who has suffered unjustly for his commitment to transparency. This group often includes references to government overreach and the importance of safeguarding journalistic freedom as a cornerstone of democracy.

There is also skepticism and outright disapproval of Assange, questioning his methods and the legality of his actions. This sentiment often comes from those who believe Assange's activities endangered lives and compromised national security. For these Americans, Assange's release is a troubling precedent that could embolden similar actions in the future.

Both sides of the argument include emotional intensity with passionate language and strong opinions from those involved. Many posts include references to past grievances with political establishments, underscoring deeper, long-standing frustrations with issues of governance, accountability, and civil liberties.

Demographic Patterns

Younger generations, particularly those active on digital platforms like X and Reddit, tend to champion Assange as a symbol of the fight against corrupt institutions. This demographic often aligns with more libertarian or left-leaning political views and is deeply concerned with issues of digital rights and government surveillance.

Older demographics, particularly those with a military background or conservative leanings, are more likely to voice concerns about Assange's impact on national security. This group often promotes narratives of patriotism and the protection of state secrets as paramount to national safety, reflecting a more traditional perspective on law and order.

Impact Analysis

For some, Assange's release is a catalyst for deeper reflection on their political beliefs and actions. Assange supporters indicate this event reinforces their distrust in government institutions. They also say it increases their likelihood of supporting candidates who prioritize transparency and civil liberties.

For others, particularly those concerned with national security, the release reaffirms their support for tougher policies on government whistleblowers and classified information leaks. Moderates and independents show a strong interest in the issue, as it speaks to governmental accountability and civil liberties. These topics are becoming increasingly central to American political discourse.

Based on current trends, these demographics will likely remain engaged with the issue, potentially influencing their voting behavior in future elections. They might lean toward candidates who emphasize civil liberties and whistleblower protection, seeing the issues as important to democratic principles.

Reactions also highlight potential interest from undecided voters and Independents. While Assange's release might not be the sole consideration for their votes, it could influence these segments. Framing themes of government accountability and personal freedom will likely appeal to this group.

Those who are disillusioned with both major political parties might view Assange's predicament as indicative of systemic issues that need addressing. This could cause them to gravitate towards candidates who advocate for reform and transparency.

Allegations are spreading online that a notorious hacking group called LockBit claims it hacked the Federal Reserve, breaching 33 terabytes of data. While the hack has not been confirmed, many Americans are discussing whether it could be real and, if so, what the implications might be.

The Fed, which is touted as a cornerstone of the U.S. financial system, claims to maintain robust security and stability, given its prominent position in global finance. Allegations of a breach at such a critical institution are naturally alarming and some speculate the Fed would never admit to a hack, even if it was true.

• Sentiment towards banks and the economy has leveled out since a dip on June 22, despite news of the possible hack.
• Meanwhile, crypto sentiment has increased to 53%, suggesting those looking for alternatives to traditional institutions are motivated by such news.

Do Americans Believe the Allegations?

Nefarious actors potentially accessing sensitive information and or causing disruptions to the Feds operations is a huge threat to privacy and national security. Hacking claims have not been officially confirmed by the Federal Reserve, nor have they been wholly dismissed. This ambiguity leaves voters grappling with potential data exposure and leadership incompetence.

Some Americans believe the allegations are credible, citing previous instances where government agencies were targets of sophisticated cyberattacks. This group contends if these rumors hold any truth, it underscores a grave vulnerability within the nation’s most crucial financial infrastructure, potentially jeopardizing not only national but also global economic stability.

Others are skeptical, saying the rumors lack concrete evidence and might be part of misinformation campaigns. They emphasize the Fed, given its importance, would likely have robust cyber defenses in place to thwart such threats. This group also claims hackers have an incentive to take credit for hacks which did not happen or were thwarted.

Sentiment About U.S. Financial Security

Most people react with anxiety, scrutiny, and speculation. Online conversations weigh the potential consequences if a security breach did occur. Many fear destabilization in the financial markets, loss of sensitive data, and a potential ripple effect on the global economy. This anxiety demonstrates underlying concerns Americans have about the integrity of the

News of a potential Federal Reserve hack spurs online speculation about the U.S. financial system and government competence.

Although unconfirmed, the allegations have many Americans expressing worry about the ability of government and banking agencies to protect American interests.

The discourse highlights an ongoing skepticism and distrust many voters harbor toward government institutions, increasing support for opt-out solutions like crypto.

SCOTUS recently had two major rulings on gun rights in America:

• On June 14 they overturned the Trump-era bump stock ban
• On June 21 upheld a law barring domestic abusers from gun ownership

In the wake of these two decisions, MIG Reports observed American reactions which align with divisions on constitutional interpretations and social policies.

Bump Stocks

The Supreme Court's ruling to strike down the 2017 bump stock ban elicits celebrations among gun rights advocates. They view this decision as a victory for the Second Amendment. These advocates argue reversing the ban is necessary and a justified check on bureaucratic overreach. They view it as a reaffirmation of constitutional gun rights.

Voters who support the ruling emphasize the importance of procedural correctness and the role of elected officials in making laws, not unelected bureaucrats. These responses are generally characterized by a sentiment of triumph and confidence in the judiciary's support for gun rights.

Conversely, opponents of the ruling voice concern over public safety. They lament the potential increase in gun violence and mass shootings. They criticize the Court's decision as dangerously misaligned with public safety and common sense. The sentiment here is one of frustration and fear, emphasizing a belief that SCOTUS is taking a dangerously far-right stance prioritizing gun rights over community safety.

Domestic Abusers and Gun Ownership

The ruling upholding a federal law banning those with domestic violence restraining orders from gun ownership is less contentious. Reactions have been largely supportive across a broader spectrum.

Advocacy groups for domestic violence survivors and public safety applaud the decision as a monumental step toward protecting vulnerable populations from potential harm. These responses are imbued with relief and validation, recognizing the Court’s acknowledgment of limits to the Second Amendment.

However, there are some staunch Second Amendment proponents who view this ruling as an excessive restriction on gun rights. Some argue the law infringes upon the rights of those who may have been unfairly treated in the justice system or who are subject to potentially capricious restraining orders. Although these dissenting views exist, they tend to be less prominent compared to the widespread approval.

Sentiment Trends

Overall, Americans feel these two rulings underscore a polarized landscape concerning gun rights and public safety. Progressives typically see upholding domestic abuser gun restrictions as a necessary balance to the Second Amendment. They see it as ensuring societal safety and protecting human lives. Meanwhile, overturning the bump stock ban is a more contentious flashpoint for debates about individual rights versus regulatory measures.