Trigger words: liberal (3) Liberals
Indicator sentences: Over time, the meaning of liberalism has changed. What you're thinking of is considered [classical liberalism](https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism).
Negotiation parts: You see allot of classical liberalism in the beliefs of modern day libertarians which tend to associate more with the Republican party than the Democratic party these days. It's important to realize that there are vast differences in party ideologies from what they were in the past. Lincoln freed the slaves but he was a Republican Also, do keep in mind, that america's libertarian party is a perfect example of a shift in meaning, as what we call libertarians here is nothing like what the word means elsewhere. This is true, I was answering on the premise that we were speaking in terms of American politics. I do find the differentiation of political terms around the world pretty interesting.
Trigger words: liberals liberal
Indicator sentences: Except what you're contrasting is conservative and *progressive*, not conservative and liberal.
Negotiation parts: Progressives and liberals often have a lot of overlap (in part because early liberalism was by nature a progressive change from the status quo), but they're not the exact same thing. Moreover, neither progressives nor liberals tend to change things just for the sake of changing them: they may be much more *open* to the idea of reinterpreting traditional understandings of Constitutional rights, but that still doesn't say anything about a given example. Basically, you're using a dictionary definition of "conservative" and a colloquial definition of "liberal" when OP's entire argument was about the original definition of liberalism and its historical focus on civil rights. Sure, if we conflate "liberal" and "progressive" then restricting gun rights can fall under that umbrella, but at that point so could making it illegal for the religious to hold public office. (Needless to say, I don't think that would end up being considered a liberal position.) Perhaps it would help if I rephrased the question: by my understanding, what OP is asking is "why is the restriction of this particular civil right now considered to be a liberal idea, yet in virtually all other cases liberals expand and defend civil rights?" Yes, change can be considered liberal, but there are lots of thing that liberals have no interest in changing and, on this sort of thing, they traditionally advocate a very different sort of change. It's tricky, because liberals are also associated with left-wing idealogies but extreme lefism like Socialism is decidely intrusive and 100% for controlling things like gun possession because the left favors strong goverment. Pretty much, which is why the whole "left/right" thing is so problematic in the first place (and where we get horseshoe theory from). Liberalism used to be typically a left-wing thing, but leftism hasn't necessarily been liberal, and nowadays ("classical") liberalism is in some weird limbo between the two (with a dash of libertarian) depending on which issues you're looking at.
Trigger words: liberal (4) Liberals
Indicator sentences: Depends on your definition of "Liberal."
Negotiation parts: There are a several ways to use the term and there are different historical contexts, but in general a liberal is defined as someone who isn't conservative. Conservatism is by definition the practice of preserving the current state of things. Almost all successful liberal issues eventually become conservative issues once enough time has passed. American conservatives are behind gun rights because that's the way things are today and have been so for the duration of living history. In another hundred years, the preservation of the right to an abortion will be a conservative issue too. So yes, gun rights *were* a liberal concept, but since gun rights can only really erode from what people are familiar and comfortable with, it is now a conservative issue.