Did GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump really sound a dog-whistle message this week that gun owners — or, as he called them, "Second Amendment people" — could take matters into their own hands if Hillary Clinton becomes president?

Whether or not he meant it as a veiled threat to his Democratic rival's well-being or a call for political lobbying action to back conservative judicial appointments, the comments were more than just vague. They were intrinsically dishonest, too.

It all began with these Trump comments: "Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

{"type":"video","title":"Dallas News Video","author_name":"Dallas News","_id":"dyMm45NTE6zr41yE9hFR8N2bRf6SjV-s","provider_name":"Ooyala","html":"

","providerType":"ooyala","providerLink":"http://beta.dallasnews.com/oembed","embedType":"video"}

Let's examine those thoughts.

First, Clinton favors tightened gun restrictions but has never indicated she wants to repeal the Second Amendment. Even if she secretly did want to do so, that's not within the powers of the presidency. Amending the Constitution is a very tedious and complicated process. It requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or two-thirds of state legislatures to propose changes; there's an even higher bar for ratification.

Trump's comments are misleading in another way. Support of reasonable gun laws is not the same as abolishing the Second Amendment; politicians need to stop pandering to Second Amendment absolutists. All of our constitutional rights have limits. Screaming fire in a crowded theater is considered a reasonable limitation on the First Amendment protection of free speech. Likewise, the Second Amendment leaves room for reasonable gun-control legislation.

Who says so? Antonin Scalia, for one. The late conservative justice, a Reagan appointee, wrote the majority opinion in the landmark District of Columbia vs. Heller case, which affirmed the individual right to have a gun while noting that that right has limits.

And he is not the only prominent conservative to recognize the limits of gun ownership. President Ronald Reagan signed legislation in 1986 to ease gun restrictions, then later joined with former presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter to help pass an assault weapons ban in 1994. The ban was allowed to expire, and subsequent Congresses have battled over whether to reinstate it. But constitutionally, there is no question that such a ban could be enacted by a future Congress and not violate the Second Amendment.

Political campaigns thrive on portraying opponents in the least favorable light; Trump isn't alone in that. But such distortions cross the line to demonization and make it impossible to have rational, constructive conversations around complex issues.

It matters what presidents and would-be presidents say. It matters more what an audience hears. Political violence is not a joke, nor should any related words out of the mouth of public officials be so ambiguous that conservatives and liberals alike cringe.

Loose language like the kind Trump regularly spews is irresponsible. When it grabs the attention of the Secret Service, as his Second Amendment comments did this week, it's something worse.

The constitutional truth about guns

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

— Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in the landmark District of Columbia vs. Heller case that affirmed the individual right to have a gun while noting that right has limits