Freedoms are not limitless.
There is no right to libel, no right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc. Some things genuinely are in the public's best interest.
Let me guess, Freedom is about Authority??? Conservatives generally believe that government should not be given any more power than necessary. If Dog fighting is Illegal and pit bulls are bread to fight, what makes you think that these folks that do ILLEGAL dog fighting are going to be afraid to give up an illegal breed of dog. OTOH The responsible pit bull owners that know how to handle their dogs are punished for this stupidity.
If someone is not hurting anyone there is no need for the state to intervene and curtail their freedom. This is exactly what breed specific legislation does. Now if someone has a dog, whatever the breed, and treats it badly and turns it into an anti-social animal that attacks others, then there is need for the state to ban that person from owning a dog. It is a case of banning bad owners, not picking on innocent pets because they happen to resemble some mythical breed called a "pitbull". Supporters of the nanny state who are out to ban the mythical "pitbull" are nothing more than autocrats and a serious threat to liberty.
Only a galah, a totally irrational person would argue that a person's harmless pet should be banned because it looks like something that some people refer to as a "pitbull". However, a rational person would argue that a person who treats a dog badly and turns it into something anti-social should be banned from owning dogs. They would also argue that a person who happens to own any dog, whatever the breed, that has a propensity to attack should ensure that that dog is properly housed so that it does not get the opportunity to attack. If the owner fails in this duty, they should be banned from owning dogs. People who want to ban a dog for no higher reason than its alleged breed are only hurting many innocent pets and their owners.