Here's a question no RP supporter has ever been able to answer: Is Paul an "originalist" as some RP supporters claim, or is he a "strict constructionist" as other RP supporters claim?
The man is a supporter of our Constitution both as it was originally written and as it was strictly constructed.
Bonus points for explaining the difference.
Any difference you see is only what you want to see, - in your mind.
Bogus points to you if you can explain your "originalist" vs "strict constructionist" false dichotomy.
Here's a clue: an originalist tries to discern what the intent of the Framers was in drafting the Constitution and attempts to hew to their understanding of the Constitution.
I discern that the intent of the Framers in drafting the 2nd was to prevent infringements on owning/carrying arms. And I attempt to hew to that understanding of the Constitution.
A strict constructionist treats the Constitution as a self-contained document and attempts to interpret it on its own terms without reference to external factors like the intent of the Framers.
As a strict constructionist, I treat the 2nd as a self-contained amendment and can interpret it on its own terms without need to reference to external factors like the intent of the Framers.
My two positions do not conflict, - but please, feel free to ping me again when you have decided to take such matters seriously.
There will be many points of contact where a strict constructionist's conclusion and an originalist's conclusion will be identical - they are, after all, working from the same text.
However, there will be points where they bump heads.
The 2nd Amendment creates a potential conflict between the two views because an originalist will be relying on what the Framers notion of a "militia" is, while a strict constructionist can - but is not obligated to - take a more regulatory view of firearm ownership based on the use of "militia" in the text of the Amendment.
The two approaches are not identical.