I don't think people want to accept that they indeed DO have to have their rights infringed on when we live in a free society--it's the plain, perfectly legit idea of "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose." If I keep swinging, I go to jail--that can indeed be characterized as "infringing on my freedom."
In this case, curtailing the "freedom" of the owner is perfectly justifiable when we're talking about an object that can't be controlled. I find it very difficult to believe that if people don't have pit bulls, they won't be able to protect their homes.
The attempt to draw a parallel with gun ownership because pit bulls are used as home protection is ridiculous. A gun can't leap a fence or take itself out of a drawer.
A gun can’t leap a fence, but a dog that stands about 14” high can?
Or was this another case of a mean scary dog owned by some thug who neglected, starved, and beat it into a monster being automatically called a “pitbull” because it makes for good news?
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html