In an interview with “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough on MSNBC on Wednesday, presidential candidate Peter Francis O’Rourke admitted that, yes, he was willing to pry your AR-15 from your cold dead hands. As Townhall.com reports:

Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke said "there have to be consequences" for gun owners who do not surrender their AR-15s, which would include police going to their homes and confiscating them…

"OK, but let’s just assume there’s a rancher in Texas that doesn’t, that says, 'I’m not going to do this because this is an unjust law and it’s unconstitutional.' What’s the next step? I think that’s what we need to concede because there will be people that don’t turn the guns back in. What’s the next step for the federal government there?" Scarborough asked.

"Yeah, I think just as in any law that is not followed or flagrantly abused, there have to be consequences or else there is no respect for the law," O'Rourke replied. "So you know, in that case I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased, bought back so that it cannot be potentially used against somebody else."

First of all, Beto, just what law would that be? A “red flag law” that says you are crazy until proven sane and too dangerous to defend yourself with a commonly used defensive weapon,? President Obama already tried that with seniors and vets. Or a mandatory buyback law that to be accomplished du door-to-door gun confiscation as pushed in in New Jersey and Illinois? Which part of “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” in the Second Amendment do you not understand? Of course, this is the candidate who celebrated Constitution Day by calling for outright gun confiscation.

Of course, Beto expects the law-abiding citizen, perhaps a veteran, protecting his family will simply answer the door and respond to the demand that he surrender his legally owned firearm along with his constitutional rights by saying, “Excuse me, officer, I know I fought for my country and have threatened no one, but since some politician who is protected by armed security thinks I’m a danger to my community, well, here they are. And what’s the response time for 911 again?

In Maryland, a man was shot to death by police as they attempted to issue a red-flag gun confiscation order. As reported by GunsAmericaDigest:

Gary J. Willis, 61, opened the door to his home with a gun in his hand when two police officers came knocking at 5:17 a.m. on Nov. 5. Anne Arundel County police say Willis put the gun on a table next to the door, but “became irate” when the officers explained that they had come to confiscate his firearms.

Willis grabbed his gun and a struggle ensued, during which the firearm discharged. No one was injured, but the officer not engaged in the struggle shot Willis, and he died at the scene.

Under Maryland’s new Extreme Risk Protection Order law (aka, “red flag law”), family, police, and mental health professionals can seek an order from a judge to temporarily confiscate firearms from a person believed to be a danger to themselves or others. It’s almost identical to similar laws passed around the country, including Florida, in the wake of the Parkland massacre.

Believed to be a danger by whom? The dawn knock at the door might have been an intruder. Then Willis wouldn’t surrender his legally owned firearm because some judge believed some anonymous complaint. Then he was dead, his gun almost literally pried from his cold dead hands.

We saw the presumption of innocence under assault during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and it is once again under assault with the consideration of so-called “red flag” laws after the mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso.  These laws would allow authorities to disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens on the basis that it has been somehow determined that they are an unstable threat to themselves and to society. They might commit a crime. And, as we have seen, could precipitate tragedies like the shooting of Gary Willis.

This determination can be made based on reports from vengeful former spouses, ex-girlfriends and  boyfriends,  former co-workers, hostile neighbors, just about anybody with a grievance against you, even by government agencies pushing a gun-control agenda.

Democrats don’t want everybody to be subject to red flag laws, only the law-abiding, and certainly not gang-bangers. As the Washington Examiner noted on September 14:

House Democrats this week advanced a new measure to encourage states to pass “red flag” laws, known as extreme risk protection orders, that authorize removing guns and ammunition from dangerous individuals.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee amended the measure during a Wednesday mark-up to authorize the federal government to issue extreme risk protection orders in some instances, but they rejected an amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists as a gang member.

“The majority of violent crime, including gun violence, in the United States is linked to gangs,” Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican who sponsored the amendment, said Wednesday. “My amendment is quite simple. It would allow the issuance of a red flag order against anyone whose name appears in a gang database if there was probable cause to include that individual in the database.”

Dems like House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler warned that people could be wrongly identified as gang members, just as people have been mistakenly put on no-fly lists.  But identifying NRA members and law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms as killers-in-waiting are okay to Nadler, Swalwell, and O’Rourke. Yet, as Buck points out, urban police departments have a pretty good idea of who the gang members in their community are and are held to a high standard before officially listing them as member:

Beto’s response to Scarborough is frightening on multiple levels and harkens the mind back to the day when a group of bitter clingers assembled in Waco, Texas. They were perceived to be a threat, and the guns they possessed were said to be illegally and/or dangerous. In what may be called an early application of a red flag confiscation order, government agents laid siege to their compound followed by an assault that resulted in the deaths of 76 men, women and children on April 19, 1993.

Is this what Beto wants? For Americans will not meekly give up their constitutional right to bear arms or defend their liberty from tyrants, foreign and domestic.

Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.