Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

[Q]: Really this Muslim trying to protect his rear-end? From Pakistan practices medical in Alaska, Arkansas, Australia, wow this dude has quit a medical scam going on. But watch the crooked Judges and Lawyers will turn him loose.
[A]: Yes


[Q]: As I understand it, the current situation is this:
1 A Hawaii citizen has a registered firearm
2 This person is convicted of a felony in another state
3 The person returns to Hawaii
4 There is no system in place to inform HPD that the person should no longer have access to a firearm.
5 The person tries to register a new firearm
6 HPD finds out the person should not have any firearms, and requires the individual to give up his firearms

It seems to me that this problem should be solved at the federal level with this change in operations:
1 A Hawaii citizen has a registered firearm
2 This person is convicted of a felony in another state
3 The operators of the federal database inform HPD that person should no longer have a firearm
4 HPD requires the individual to give up his firearms upon their return to Hawaii

It is most likely that I'm completely misreading the situation, law, capabilities of the federal database, or a bunch of other factors. Can someone clear this up for me?
[A]: No


[Q]: Guess what cate arriola. We need 50 million dollar buildings to sort through all the trials from punk criminals that have invaded my state from who knows where. Of course these true alaskans did not come here for the pfd and big time welfare checks. They moved here for the sunny beaches and skinny ladies
[A]:
No