TASK DEFINITION: Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.
PROBLEM: My wife home schools our three and we accomplish more in 3 hours than government accomplishes in 7 (our kids are 2 grades ahead), schools need to toss all the garbage, go back to teaching facts and let the kids use their time in other productive ways.

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: There is a very simple solution that would allow non-consumptive users to contribute to state sponsored wildlife education, conservation, and wildlife viewing programs and that is to have a voluntary checkoff on the PFD application. If this were in place, one could contribute as much as one wants from one's PFD. 

But there is a catch, as a non-consumptive user - I would want equal representation on the Board of Game as opposed to the second class status that non-consumptive users currently are relegated to. It is for this reason that while the hunting community may complain about non-hunters not contributing financially, in reality, this is exactly what they want as it helps them to maintain their political monopoly on fish and wildlife resources. 

During a time when the state is facing a serious budget crunch, such a proposal as the above, only makes sense to help fund the above programs regardless of opposition from the hunting community.

SOLUTION: No

PROBLEM: The people who wrote our Constitution would be amazed at what you wrote: "gun ownership for hunting and recreation is okay, but for self-defense, that is absurd"

Who rounded up the citizens and incarcerated them at Honouliuli Internment Camp?  It was not the Territory of Hawaii.  It was the U.S. government.

SOLUTION:
No