Oregon has a bill under consideration that would turn the state into the most anti-gun state in the nation overnight. It’s probably the most restrictive weapon capacity bill considered ever. After all, any law that would make revolvers illegal due to ammunition capacity is as restrictive as they come.

Now, even liberal gun owners are digging in to battle against this measure.

The Liberal Gun Club said it plans to lobby against the proposed ban on magazines capable of holding more than 5 rounds of ammunition and limiting the purchase of ammunition to 20 rounds a month. “So, the big one we’re focusing on right now is the Oregon bill,” spokeswoman Lara Smith told the Washington Free Beacon. “That’s just draconian. It’s crazy.” Speaking at the firearms convention SHOT in Las Vegas, Smith said the Oregon bill could potentially be dangerous because it limits how often gun owners can practice safely operating their guns. “It’s literally limiting you to 20 rounds of ammunition, no matter how many firearms do you own, what they’re for,” Smith said. “So, where we’re going to go with that is we’ll go in and say, ‘Hey look, you’re making people less safe. When you do something like this, this is how people get hurt. People aren’t gonna know how to safely operate their firearms.’ We’ll go in and instead of saying, ‘Oh my god, you’re horrible and evil and trying to ban guns,’ we’ll go in and say, ‘Have you thought about the safety impact of what you’re doing?’”

Honestly, that approach might be for the best in places like Oregon. After all, it’s a fair point. A mere 20 rounds per month is ridiculously restrictive, enough so that even the average range trip wouldn’t be able to happen without months and months to stockpile the ammunition. It would restrict how people would train and learn to use their weapon safely.

Additionally, I seriously doubt liberal lawmakers in Oregon are going to care about the arguments that it’s a violation of the Second Amendment. I mean, yeah, it is. That’s not a point I’m going to argue against. But will they give a damn? Not likely. If they’re willing to consider this, I somehow doubt that argument is going to sway them.

Sometimes, you have to tailor your arguments for your audience, and that’s something we’ve sucked at as a community over the years. Many of us, myself included, believe that pointing to the Second Amendment is all the discussion that should be required. However, how well does that work? It might hold water in pro-gun states, but it hasn’t done a damn thing in California or New York.

Frankly, I think all pro-gun groups in Oregon should take their cue on this from the Liberal Gun Club. Screaming about rights isn’t going to sway those who don’t believe that right either exists or is as sacrosanct as it is. It’s far better to hit them with a language they understand, and that includes talking about how this will reduce safety as people won’t be able to practice with their weapons.

If one of the arguments against anyone owning guns is that we lack the training of law enforcement when it comes to shooting, why try and make it harder for us to get that training?

Good call.