Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this


By Miriam Raftery

April 30, 2018 (La Mesa) – Remarks made by La Mesa School Board president and gun shop owner David Chong in a video on his Facebook page are drawing criticism from some parents and teachers, bringing gun issues to the November reelection campaign.

In the video, made to endorse Mayor Bill Wells’ Congressional race, Chong says, “Hello, my fellow shooters and patriots. David Chong here, owner of AO Sword Firearms in El Cajon.“ He adds, “We all know what it’s like to be gun owners in California. The official sport of Sacramento is racing to outlaw assault banana clips and telescoping bump shrouds.” 

Chong adds in his videos, “We have half of our lawmakers taking firearms policy advice from kids who were eating Tide Pods just last week,” a reference to a dangerous Internet challenge in which some youths ate laundry soap pods and posted videos. Chong goes on to warn of losing seats in Congress to “gun grabbers.”

Jay Steiger, a parent and past PTA president in the district who previously ran for the LMSV school board, calls the video “disturbing and disrespectful on many levels.”  He adds, “By referencing Tide pods, a passing and obviously ridiculous fad which ahs no connection to any student advocates across our nation, Mr. Chong dismisses the thoughtful and passionate voices of our civically engaged young people,” referring to students who staged a national walk-out calling for action to protect schools from mass shootings after a massacre at a Parkland, Florida high school.

Steiger also criticized Chong for using the “false equivalency of the tragedy of the holocaust to suggest there should be more guns” in other posts on Chong’s social media.  “This is not only a blatantly incorrect reading of this terrible event, but disrespects the solemn memory of the victims and survivors.   By announcing himself as the La Mesa-Spring Valley School Board District President while including pictures of machine guns, Mr. Chong has wrongly linked this district with that image. We, as members of this community, should be supportive of our students and schools, rather than playing to divisive ideology.”

Emily Green posted in reply, “I will not enroll my kids in the LMSV…while he is on the board.”

But Steve Townsend fired back, “What does it matter what kind of business he owns or runs?”

CBS 8, in an article on the Chong  controversy, spoke with Maleia Ferreira, a 9th grader at Patrick Henry High School who joined the national walkout calling for tougher gun laws to reduce school shootings. She called Chong’s remarks “really awful,” adding it was “upsetting to hear, because us kids are just trying to speak out for these kids that have gotten killed because of these guns being controlled by other kids.”

Chong has issued a statement bizarrely linking gun control to the Holocaust “in which 6 million disarmed Jews were killed by their own government.”  He added, “Those with evil intent are not deterred by `gun free-zone’ signs; criminals don’t obey anti-gun laws. A firearm is the only tool that gives the meek an immediate, irrefutable voice in what happens in their own body against a stronger attacker.”

But Carol Landale, a member of San Diegans for Gun Violence Prevention, believes educators should support students—and that kids rallying around the nation since the Parkland slaughter by a gunman armed with a semi-automatic rifle may ultimately bring about change, along with their families.

“Children have parents and parents vote,” she told CBS 8, “and in a few more years, the kids will be voting.”

Meanwhile, registered voters in the LMVA will have the opportunity to vote out, or reelection, Chong in November.

Chong isn’t the only local school board member in the crosshairs of public criticism for touting gun owners’ rights over students’ safety concerns.  As ECM reported earlier this month, Cajon Valley Union School District board member Jim Miller wore an NRA hat and T-shirt to a meeting where advocates of gun violence prevention had showed up to address the board. Miller also fired off a derisive email to a retired teacher who had written to ask the district to adopt a resolution supporting actions called for by the Parkland students to combat gun violence.  Miller signed his letter on behalf of the San Diego Gun Owners Political Action Committee. 

Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at https://www.eastcountymedia.org/donate to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.


Interesting Arguments on Amendments

When Larry Flynt, the great defender of the 1st Amendment, ran for office it was a big joke. We get a character like Donald Trump and the Evangelical vote pushes him over the top. Lately wondering what the differences in the two are. Especially their views towards women which represent the largest group of the American population. How do they feel about our current Presidents latest revealation and his love affair with telling the truth or not? Why are women allowing themselves to be subjugated by these predators in power like this? What is the best way for people with values still intact to stand against this mindset?

Wrong guy gramps

I never said anything about more guns less crime. Realize that more than one person is reading and responding to you.

Your original statement may make sense to you, but no one else.


Nothing wrong with what I stated. Read what's printed - again. Meanwhile I'm still waiting for you proven, factual statistics about "more guns equals less crime". Don't deflect on the issue.

Grandfather, maybe you should read what you write.

Please tell us what sense your comment "Guns are okay with me (obviously in the possession of someone sane) but we really don't need the type which enables mass killings of innocent people. Maybe if you or a loved one were caught up in an incident (or you witnessed it) your perspective would change." makes.

Are you saying that if I was caught in a bad situation I would really want a smaller or more politically correct gun?
Your comment makes no sense.


Please provide real data that more guns equal less crime. If you actually read what I had to say, nothing was mentioned about taking guns away from people. I suggest you read my comments over again, slowly, and absorb what is printed. Guns are okay with me (obviously in the possession of someone sane) but we really don't need the type which enables mass killings of innocent people. Maybe if you or a loved one were caught up in an incident (or you witnessed it) your perspective would change. Now sit back and relax, calm down and breathe slowly.

David Chong is right!

@grandfather seems to know something about guns. Too bad he and his ilk want to give our freedoms away. You'll widdle away our rights, and won't be any safer. More guns equal less crime.


It's about overkill. It's about senseless mass murder in today's society. It's about young men and women having a voice and a right to speak their mind. Seriously, who needs a semi-automatic military style rife with an extra large capacity bullet magazine? Hunters? I think not, at least real not hunters. Self defense? It's been a very long time since this country was invaded by nefarious soldiers. Defending one's home? Really? If someone needs to expend that many rounds to maim or kill an intruder (spray and pray) then that person needs to go get some real gun training and learn how to actually hit the target. Enhance the rifle with a bump stock to go fully auto style and the shooter has even more fire power. For what? Have gun enthusiasts become so paranoid that they believe a ground war is going to start in the U.S.? If anything happens here by a foreign faction, it will undoubtedly be far worse than one can imagine and most likely something an untrained gun owner will be able to defend against anyway. Leave it to the professionals, our highly trained military personnel. That's why we have them. A basic 12 gauge shotgun loaded with alternate buckshot and solid slugs (even a 20 gauge would do) along with a decent handgun like a .357 magnum (which accepts .38 as well) will suffice in most circumstances. Heck even a .22 will kill a person or large animal if the round is placed correctly. Settle down gun enthusiasts, no one is trying to disarm you. No, I'm not against guns. In fact I am quite skilled at shooting, have owned them, hunted with them and used them for self defense.

It is ABSOLUTELY about the 2nd amendment.

How about we start messing with the 1st amendment? or maybe the 5th? We don't need cars that go 150mph either, shall we put speed limiters on all cars in an effort to prevent highway deaths? While we're at it let's ban alcohol, think of the lives we'll save from DWI deaths! Let's ban heroin and opioids too, we can prevent almost 70k deaths a year right there. When will you folks realize you can't blame the pencil for misspelling words, it can't be that hard to wrap your head around...sigh. If the first amendment can cover TV, Radio and the Internet, then without a doubt the 2nd can cover semi automatic rifles. You cannot choose to defend only the rights that pertain to you and your lifestyle, its all or nothing.

We DO limit drugs etc for safety & gun limits are constitutional

per even the most conservative justice. Courts HAVE actually held that the Second Amendment does not apply to every form of weapon. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly said so, in a 2008 case called Heller.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the court’s most principled conservatives at the time. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” (The case itself concerned gun laws in Washington, D.C.) 

Source: Newsweek  http://www.newsweek.com/second-amendment-las-vegas-gun-control-680384

The arguments you make are bad examples.  Heroin IS illegal and we DO prohibit driving vehicles at speeds over 70 mph or so to save lives. We also  have limits on how potent various types of alcohol can be, and restrict sales of opioids to prescription only. These are all reasonable limits to save lives. 


Its not a gun problem, its a people problem.

Thank you for pointing out that heroin is already illegal, and that we have speed limits etc. Apparently liberalism comes with an aversion to sarcasm. My point, was that passing laws and banning drugs simply does not work. Thanks for helping me make my case. Guns are not the problem and you might as well face that fact, because you'll never get rid of them and any attempt to do so will undoubtably bring about the next revolution in this once great country. If you were to rid the planet tomorrow of every firearm there is, do you actually think the violence would stop? The people that perform these terrible acts of violence will always find ways to commit murder, if not with a gun, then with a knife, or a van, or a plane, or a pressure cooker or sticks and stones. Most conservatives, myself included, have no problem with gun "control", its a fact that not everyone should have one and that we should have strict laws governing who can own one. I don't actually believe that my neighbor needs to be able to possess a bazooka, or a fully automatic assault rifle, or hand grenades either for that matter. However, the constant attacks from the left on the 2nd amendment get old, and banning a specific class of weapon is seen as the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and its a slippery slope. No one wants to give an inch, because they know they'll lose a mile. I know you're probably not interested in my opinion, but I'm going to give it anyway considering this is an open forum and I have the floor. I believe there are many contributing factors that have brought about the increase in gun violence in this country, but I don't believe that guns are one of them. I believe that the breakdown of the American family sits at the top of the list. The statistics are undeniable, and its something we must find a way to fix. I believe the war on Christianity in this country has also played a role not only in violence, but also in the breakdown of the family. I believe that the entertainment industry has played a major role in our demise as well, look at the level of violence in movies today compared to 50-60 years ago. Video games are so graphic, its almost real and children at even the youngest ages are desensitized to death because of it. I believe Social Media is a major factor, kids get bullied all day at school and then it continues online and they have no outlet. Last, but certainly not least, would be drugs and alcohol and the easy accessibility of both, which I believe are major contributors. No, I don't believe further regulation on guns will make any difference at all, any more than treating the bottle rather than the alcoholic will solve a drinking problem. Food for thought.....The Fatherless Generation

When Congress banned assault weapons, mass murders fell

sharply.  When the ban was lifted, mass murders by gun went way up. So it DID work (not 100%, but the difference was dramatic).

So it's simply untrue to say regulating the types of guns owned can't influence violent crime or protect people. It already has.  Many of those slaughtered in recent years by semi-automatic weapons in the U.S. would likely be alive today if Congress hadn't repealed the assault weapons ban.

It will never work 100% in the U.S. as long as some people can smuggle in a gun over a border (unlike Britain or Australia, that doesn't have issue). But most would-be shooters in say, Kansas don't have that kind of access and would find it harder to buy a weapon of mass mruder. 

The Granite Hills shooting in El Cajon occurred during the assault waeapons ban.  The shooter had only a rifle and was able to be taken down when he stopped to reload, and despite firing several shots he only wounded a couple of people and did not kill anyone.  If he'd been able to by an AK-15 or similar weapon, there would've be a lot more dead kids and teachers.

No right is absolutely. Not even the Amendment. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. You can't incite violence; that's a crime.  Only the gun owners seem to think their "right" to own weapons of mass destruction is more important than protection children and teachers in schools, or innocent concert goers, etc. from mass murder.

You don't need an assault rifle to go deer hunting or protect yourself from an intruder. There's only one reason those guns were made -- to kill people.  We don't let ordinary citizens own tanks, bazookas or rocket launchers or full-automatic weapons. Semi-automatics should arguably be added on that list, too, given how many times they've been used to commit mass murder.