U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, was already far behind the first-tier candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination prior to last Thursday’s presidential primary debate.

His performance at that forum did nothing to improve his standing. In fact, it called into question his judgment, as well as his fitness for our nation’s highest office.

Responding to a question about gun control, Beto displayed these shortcomings with the following response: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47, and we’re not going to allow it to be used against your fellow Americans anymore.”

This response is flawed in several ways.

Law-abiding citizens who own these guns possess them for hunting, target shooting and for protection of home and family should the need ever arise. They pose no danger to other law-abiding American citizens.

Consider that Beto is actually advocating using the awesome power of the national government to confiscate personal property lawfully bought and paid for by American citizens. Let that sink in for a moment.

Even worse, he seems to have no concerns about running roughshod over our civil rights, specifically those enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

“Tyrant” is the appropriate word to describe someone who would suppress our constitutional rights, not to mention our natural or God-given right of self-defense if an individual or one’s family is at risk.

Beto brings to mind another tyrant, George III of England, whose abuse of the American colonies led to the American Revolution and ultimately our nation’s independence. It is noteworthy that the spark that ignited the conflict was the effort by British troops to confiscate firearms at Concord, Mass.

Among the long list of injuries levied against George III in our Declaration of Independence was inciting “merciless Indian savages” against his subjects in the colonies.

The need for defense against this threat was surely in the minds of our founders when the Second Amendment was embedded in the Constitution. Undoubtedly, the primary motivator was the need, based on their experience, for citizens to have the means to oppose any tyrannical government that might arise in the future.

Those who might aspire to be tyrants should carefully read and reflect on this history and our founding documents, including the right of the people to “alter or abolish” a government that becomes destructive to our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.