Brandon

Even though I do not agree with it, I understand what your argument is. I'm not really directing the comment at you. Its simply an observation that in some people's eyes, he appears to be guilty even though we don't know what happened.

And unfortunately, facts are hard to come by in this story. But that's not going to stop anyone from throwing Hardy under the bus. No sir.

You're right, but also realize that this wasn't an altercation between two strangers on the street. This was his dad. They presumably know each other very well. Hardy probably knew that his father wouldn't feel threatened by whatever action he was taking. Maybe that falls outside of the 'by the book' rules of gun ownership, but its also a strong possibility in its own right. I know that if I'd just had a heated argument/fight with my dad and a minute later, he started checking a .357, I wouldn't be too concerned at all.

I understand what you're saying. Normally, you don't want to show a concealed weapon unless you intend to use it. But at the same time, as others have said, we don't know why he drew the weapon. He may have had a perfectly legitimate reason. Again, what if the weapon had taken a hard jolt in the fight? Should he inspect it as soon as possible? Probably. Maybe the holster was damaged in some way? Who knows. There are just too many variables here to automatically assume that he was irresponsible in the matter. And he may have been.

I'm not sure I agree. If he'd just been involved in a fistfight, it would seem like a reasonable thing to make sure that a concealed weapon you might be carrying was secured (in other words, not falling from its holster, safety still engaged, etc). In the middle of the fight, not a good idea, but immediately following? Yeah, probably. That's especially true if he knew the weapon had impacted something or otherwise been knocked around in the fight. In any event, we have no idea of the circumstances which led to the weapon being removed from its holster.

Its nonsense because you seem unwilling to consider that there may be another explanation beyond him just being a thug who obviously brandished the weapon with the intent to use it. There may well be other, perfectly valid explanations that don't involve malicious intent and, in fact, one of them may be a lot closer to the truth.

That's what I suspected. So, basically, it was just a fistfight between him and his old man. Big deal.

We definitely don't. But given the fact that he wasn't taken to the county jail, I think its likely that he actually didn't draw the gun with an intent to use it and all parties (except the neighbor) realized this.

That's pretty much what I think happened here. The neighbor saw them arguing/fighting and mistook Hardy removing the gun for him drawing the gun.

If I had to guess, this was just a fistfight or a shoving match, and Hardy was setting the gun aside.

The key word there is 'apparently'. In truth, we don't know what happened. The fact that the police didn't haul him to county leads me to believe that it was indeed a misunderstanding by the neighbor.

I agree. That damn constitution is outdated. They couldn't imagined this world we live in today. We should be limited to only the tools of the day for exercising any of the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights. So I'm guessing you'll be among the first to shut off your internet and throw away your phones, TV, computer, radios, etc? Afterall, you still have print media, which was all that was available in the late 1700s. That's good enough.

LOL. I've never understood why people freak out because someone has 'too many' guns. Who cares if he owns 50 legal handguns? How many can he use at once? Hint: He only has two hands.

No, but at the same time, they don't live in a bad part of town. If that were the case, I very well might.

You mean that's not a good enough reason to lock the guy up for the next 20 years? What is this world coming to?

I agree. Who cares about waiting to find out exactly what happened here? Since when are facts important? Ban him and throw him in jail. And while we're at it, lets break out the torches and pitchforks and march on OBD for drafting him.

Why shouldn't he be carrying it and why should he turn it in? If he hasn't committed a crime here, he has as much right to own and carry it as anyone.

I agree with you, it does seem to be an overreaction without the facts. That said, while you do have a constitutional right to firearms ownership, you do not have the right to go around pointing them at other people under most circumstances. We don't know what happened here, but if Hardy did pull a gun on his father, he probably shouldn't have. I doubt that his life was in any danger, which, IMO, is the only time you have the right to do so.

Don't dump me in that group. I changed my mind after the whole pro day incident.

In most cases, all you find on June first is overpaid, over the hill junk that no one else wants.

It doesn't matter to me at all. As long as he's motivated by something, its a good thing.

Nate Clements was the top rated CB in 2001.

Hope so. The best thing I can say about that pick right now is that he's probably better than their backups, although perhaps that's more a reflection of my opinion of those guys than anything.

They could try that, no doubt about it, but on the flip side, it would seem to mean that there's one less guy out there for his blocking ability than there otherwise might be.

I'm a little skeptical of his impact in the return game. He still has to beat out McGee on kickoffs and Parrish on punts, two of the best in the business at what they do.