My position on 2A is probably that I wish it didn't exist, but _given_ that it exists, I'd want to tread very cautiously around violating constitutional rights. People take for granted how much better society is than it was for most of human history, and part of the credit for the incredible advance of human rights (from a historical perspective) of the last couple hundred years goes to advancement in governance that I think people are often too quick to take for granted. Reductively dismissing this baseline as ill-considered, hollow support for "freedom" just means you don't understand the conversation that's taking place.
Again, you and I probably substantially agree on every gun control policy you could imagine. The difference is that I don't need to reduce my opponents to shallow caricatures in order to feel secure in my beliefs.
You're also being extremely dishonest in pretending that your gas and electric example is even remotely relevant to the article or the discussion. Neither the study, the article, nor this thread is making the claim that regulations need to be entirely done away with. They're making the claim that the current state is one of excessive regulation: that florists and barbers[1] are unnecessarily regulated, not that we should allow anyone to do any job, regardless of safety concerns.
Again, if you can't make a counterargument without having to grossly misrepresent the opposite side, you should probably seriously examine your views on an issue.
[1] There are dangers in barbering that mostly avoid proper use of chemicals, but those can easily have their sale controlled instead of just requiring all barbers to be licensed.