Consider the following scenario: you live in Washington DC one month ago, in a violent neighborhood where break-ins are prevalent. You have acquired a pistol to be used for self defense, and keep it in your bedside drawer (it never leaves the house). Aside from that you are a law abiding citizen.
The police mistakenly enter your home through intentional misconduct (warrantless search) or inadvertant error (executed warrant at wrong home). Are you suggesting that when they find the gun you should be liable to prosecution?
Yes, you should face prosecution. And the police officers should face prosecution if their misconduct was found to be intentional, and serious discipline if it was found to be unintentional (read: incompetent).
We should not support the exclusionary rule because it helps us get away with breaking laws that we know are unconstitutional. The pressure to seriously fight unconstitutional laws comes from significant numbers of good citizens being prosecuted under them. Fight and win. Don’t try to scurry around under cover while supporting the exclusionary rule, which helps murderers and rapists and child molesters to go free even when there’s clear evidence of their crimes. You’re/my right to keep and bear arms is not fundamentally more important than everyone’s right not to be murdered, raped, etc by people who are known to have committed serious crimes and are nonetheless running around loose (sometimes with no criminal record at all) because of the exclusionary rule.