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.
Thank you for making my point.
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,
No, an originalist would realize that the explanation of why a free State needs a militia is not in conflict with the clear words that follow. Only socialist gun grabbers view the 2nd in that context.
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.
A strict constructionist is obligated to take the view that the right to own and carry arms shall not be infringed.
The two approaches are not identical.
Only in ~your~ mind are the two approaches in conflict. - You've bought into the majority rule "regulatory view" concept, imho.
No one is "obligated" to interpret the Constitution your way.