There is a problem with your definition of “rights”.
Municipalities decide all the time what animals are allowed in private hands. You do not have the right to keep a tiger. You do not have the right to keep other animals deemed dangerous to the public. Most municipalities ban venomous snakes or license the ownership of them. Your local wildlife agency, lawyers office, fisheries dept will be able to tell you if they can be legally kept in your area.
So limiting which animals can be kept as pets is a balance of what is dangerous to the public at large versus limitations on the individual’s freedom and is enshrined in law.
The only question here seems to be that you disagree that pitbulls represent a threat to the general public. That is where another freedom comes into play. Relocate from a municipality that outlaws private ownership of pitbulls, that is your right. Campaign that pitbulls shouldn’t be outlawed ditto.
However your argument that people shouldn’t be allowed to classify pitbulls as dangerous and restrict ownership is emotional not logical or reasonable. I’d say your rights stop when people get tired of sacrificing 2 year olds or old ladies so you can own a tiger, a pitbull or any other breed/species that attacks mankind.
JayGalt wrote: “There is a problem with your definition of “rights”.”
No, the real problem is ‘what is a pit bull’?
Are you on the FR gun-grabbing team too? Oh wait! FR doesn’t have one of those. I bet DU does. You’re on the wrong forum.