In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

[Q]: Comment: "Three seconds away from eating lead"? This is why the average person shouldn't be carrying a firearm. I can't count the times someone's dog has come running up to me on trails all over the state and sometimes they seem aggressive until they figure out I'm not a threat. I'm almost always armed when in bear country and have never once thought about shooting someone's dog. Of course if I was ever bit by one it would be a different story but even then I would more than likely strike the dog in the head with my firearm before shooting it dead.
[A]: Threat

[Q]: Comment: Isn't Rush the (other) big fat lying idiot complaining that warnings about Irma are sensationalism and people should generally not listen?

"Left" is wingnut speak for "rational" and "fact-based." Reality is facts that still remain facts even if you don't believe in them; all else is opinion. And Rush deals solely in opinion.
[A]: Non-threat

[Q]: Comment: No nuclear weapons and most modern heavy weapons including the outrageous 'cluster bombs' do not discriminate between combatants and civilians. Almost no weapons can be considered to come even remotely within the broadest criteria of the just war theory any longer.
We have evolved sufficiently now to be render us just stupid enough to rationalize and moralize our way to our own to collective self-destruction.
Let's hear the Nuns' stories, learn a lesson maybe and quit the kneejerk jingoism and shallow moralizing.
[A]:
Non-threat