Categorize the comment on the basis of threat. If the comment is threatening output Yes, otherwise output No.

[EX Q]: Enjoyed my visit to Norway. The Kon Tiki raft is at the museum in Oslo. The train ride from Oslo to Bremen is a nice ride. Nice memories.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: What a sleaze bag !!!
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: With fully computerized records, it is difficult to imagine why a background check should take more than three days.  The story above asserts the bill was prompted by an incident where a murderer purchased a gun in South Carolina after authorities failed to produce a background time in the allotted 3 day window.  What the story and presumably supporters of the bill do not tell us is whether a completed background check allowed by a 10 day window would have stopped the sale, i.e. would the shooter have been denied if the check was completed.

I can see zero reason for a background check to take more than 3 days (given the fully computerized records).  The ten day window will likely only be used to arbitrarily delay approvals to provide a de facto 10 day waiting period for fully legal gun purchasers.  That might be a good idea, but promoters of the bill should be honest about their objectives.
[EX A]:
Yes