Ah, no. Trust the pompous NY Times to get even that one wrong. "Assault rifle" has a very specific meaning and the firearms Zumbo was talking about were not assault rifles. The term that is contrived, meaningless, and subject to outrageous abuse by ignoramuses in both media and government is "assault weapon."
The confusion is natural enough - it's been a deliberate objective of the lying gun control lobby to confuse the two. An assault rifle is a rifle-caliber firearm with select-fire capabilities; i.e. is capable of full-auto fire. An assault "weapon" is anything that somebody who doesn't like how your firearm looks says it is. I realize everyone on this board knows the difference, but just on the off chance that somebody on the staff of the Times might actually want to learn something about the topic, there it is.
You saved me some typing.
To believe that the editors of the New York Times don't know the difference is to suggest that they should all be out of work and on welfare.
But it is more likely that they DO know the difference and are purposely obscuring the truth from their readers. For that they deserve to lose their jobs, to suffer tarring and feathering, and to be run out of town on a rail. For a ring-side seat to this, I would pay good money.
"I realize everyone on this board knows the difference ..."
Don't be so sure. I replied to a Giuliani supporter last night, who was claiming that Giuliani's position on gun control stems from the language of the 2nd Amendment, "Congress shall make no law ..." and that this clearly delegates responsibility for regulation of guns to the states and municipalities. Something tells me that this person wouldn't know an assault rifle from a bb gun.