That is nothing short of calloused immorality.

Well since guns are mentioned in the second ammendment, and women aren't mentioned till after the 10th, it's a constitutionally sound position to take. If your nuts, of course.

Ok, I see where the NRA are coming from. I don't agree with them. But what it is, is to do with the US Constitution and the philosophy of John Locke.
By constricting the gun ownership of violent men will prevent those men from using their weapons to protect the liberty, property and laws of the people against tyranny and enemies foreign and domestic. A government who has nothing to fear from a peoples revolution, is at risk of corruption by a single tyrannical leader.
Within this philosophy, a woman should protect herself by the use of firearms and the final sanction of death.
Bloody John Locke and his second treatise on government!
This argument works in the world of John Locke and latterly Thomas Paine and the American Revolution, but in the C21 no. We have seen in New Zealand recently and the USA the all to often mass shootings how modern firearms are a force multiplier. A pissed off maniac with a firelocke musket can pump out about two shots a minute, an assault rifle vomits out around seven rounds a second by comparison. Yes, useful when fighting a tyrannical government, but the evil that can be done when a stupid hate-monger lets loose on his previous co-workers or family.
In conclusion, don't let fuckwits have guns.

They should be shot. Seriously.

Because we need more organized Violence Against Women.