The thing that dismays me about your comment is that you seem to have decided that government cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and so we should have fewer restrictions on
everything, regardless of the danger of any particular thing, or what that particular thing is designed for. (If I've mischaracterized or misunderstood, my apologies; please correct me.)
Let's take some two hopefully-simple examples: speed limiters on cars, and guns.
I agree with you when it comes to speed limiters on cars. We shouldn't have them, and government should not be allowed to mandate them. Sure, some people drive too fast for conditions, and that's dangerous, and sometimes they hurt or kill other people by doing so. But we can combat this to some extent with education, licensing requirements, and the threat of penalties for when something bad happens. And I can think of several situations (emergency or otherwise) where someone might be justified in driving faster than a speed limiter might allow, and if the limiter was in place, that could also have bad consequences.
But then let's look at guns. They are designed to injure and kill; that is their main intended purpose. Most gun deaths, IIRC, are attributed to suicides and accidental discharges (the latter of which often involve children; I am definitely not a "think of the children!" type person, but I think in this case it might actually apply). Other gun deaths involve mass shootings, gang violence, and other criminal activity. The threat of home invasions is highly overblown, and the vast majority of the people who buy them to keep at home for protection will never need them (and will sometimes be involved in accidents or other unintended bad uses). People (in the US, primarily) who think that they need guns to protect them from a tyrannical government are delusional (if the government/military really did try to violently oppress them, the idea that they'd be able to successfully fight back is laughable). There are lots of different types of guns, from small-caliber, small-capacity weapons that don't do quite as much damage; up to semi-auto and auto "military style" weapons that can be used to kill large numbers of people in a fairly short amount of time.
I don't think I'll ever be convinced that we shouldn't have any restrictions on gun ownership, and I would probably not even be bothered by the idea of a complete ban on private gun ownership (obviously not constitutionally possible here in the US). But as a middle ground, I at least support strict licensing and background-check requirements for firearm ownership, and I think that certain classes of weapons should be restricted from private ownership.
I don't intend this to turn into a political discussion about gun control, but I just think it's weird to consider every possible kind of restriction on freedom in the same way, without critically examining what is being restricted, what it is designed to, what kind of harm a lack of restrictions will cause, and what are the negative/unintended consequences of putting those restrictions in place.
A few specific comments:
> I've realized with time that while drivers can be dangerous, they are relatively limited in how much harm they can create.
This just doesn't ring true to me. Car-related fatality statistics paint a very different picture to me.
> I honestly rather want everyone including me to have freedom to do stupid things instead of limiting freedom.
Maybe this is where the disconnect is, and where we might not be able to agree on anything. The problem with this kind of statement is that it doesn't acknowledge that personal freedoms can come at a cost to other people. If I screw something up in the exercise of my freedoms, it usually doesn't just hurt me: others get caught up in it too. My "freedoms" should include being able to live my life in peace, without other people destroying that peace, as long as I am not hurting anyone else. Unfortunately that can't be done without putting restrictions on what I and others can do in many situations.