I think you need reminding of the origin of the free software movement.
I'm well aware of the printer story. But it changes nothing, as you're conflating freedom with capability.
It's also notable that you had to use a car analogy to make a point, which suggests that the point you are trying to make cannot reasonably be made in the software scenario; if it could it would be a more effective argument.
I didn't "have to" use it, but I chose it because it illustrates the point while being familiar and tangible objects.
I suggest that the first flaws are that the car and the manual are physical artefacts that can't be in the possession of the donor and recipient at the same time, this alone disqualifies the analogy.
You're grasping at straws without addressing the argument. I have no use for the manual. Maybe I lost it. Or maybe I'm just being a jerk and don't want to give it to him. Whatever the case, it's a bullshit argument to say I've taken away from somebody's freedom when I gave them a car. They didn't have a car before, now they do. They could have refused the car. They can still attempt to fix the car on their own. That's freedom. Would they have an easier time with the manual? Yes, but that's capability.
But you might say to the recipient: I give you MY car and MY manual on the condition that when you pass the car on you must also pass the manual on. Nobody compels the recipient to pass the manual on, he willingly accepts it as a condition of receiving the car.
Yes, but if you do that you place a restriction on the new owner of the car. They are less free. It may result in more capabilities and an overall better outcome, but it's not one based on freedom.
You don't mention what "such laws" you are talking about. Is Stallman arguing FOR any laws?
"Free Software" requires the binding of copyright to be enforced. Stallman has argued that if copyright laws were to go away, a law that requires giving source for software should be put in its place. That's a consumer protection law, not freedom. It shows exactly how the GPL is not based on freedom.
Which brings me to the second analogy I gave, that being the consumer protection law of requiring ingredients to be listed on packaged food. You could argue that it gives people the "freedom" to choose food appropriately, but that's capability, not freedom, and we know these are regulations that curtail the free market but most people are in favor of them anyways without crying "freedom!".