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

Let me give you an example: Baloney. You are going to see real action against Herr Trump and his white supremacist agenda.
The answer to this example can be: Yes
Here is why: The comment suggests threat against Trump and his agendas and classified as threatening. Hence, it is a positive example

OK. solve this:
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.
Answer:
Yes