If self defense was part of the second amendment right, the why wasn't the right protected for women and children? Foreign visitors? The Indians?
It was protected for women and children. Once again you are trying to claim that the incapacity of infants is relevant to the scope of protection to be afforded a fundamental right. You really need to expound some more on how the fact that babies cannot speak impacts freedom of speech for the people. You could also expound on how freedom of assembly is impacted by the fact that newborns cannot walk.
Similar issues apply to women, because at the time the Constitution was written, women were considerd incapable of exercising their inalienable rights. It was expected that their rights would be protected by others.
The Indians had opportunities to adopt our practices and become signatories to the Constitution. They were cultural incapable of doing so. Your argument that, because some people were considered incapable of exercising their inalienable rights, has relevance to which people are considered capable of exercising their rights today, is a fallacy which reveals your desire to arbitrarily control others.
You have yet to describe a situation where the home of a woman living alone was subject to warrantless search.