My first reaction. I have no idea what the definition of "assault rifle" is, apparently any weapon that looks scary to the panty waists over at the Boston Globe, but is it elastic enough to include a "crew serviced weapon."?
For those who honestly don't know what an "assault rifle" is (e.g. liberal lurkers), here you go...
The true, historical, documented definition of "assault rifle" is:
"Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire." - Encyclopedia Britannica
If it's semi-automatic only, it does not meet the definition of an "assault rifle". I.E. The SKS Carbine, which is semi-automatic only, is not an "assault rifle".
If it's chambered for either a handgun cartridge (i.e. 9mm Uzi) or full power rifle cartridge (i.e. .30-06 M1 Garand), it does not meet the definition of an "assault rifle".
Brief History:
The term "assault rifle" comes from the German "Sturmgewehr". The Sturmgewehr was a selective-fire weapon, chambered for a cartidge called the "7.92mm Kurz". The 7.92mm Kurz had a case length of 33mm, as opposed to the 57mm case length of the 7.92mm Mauser cartridge, which was the standard rifle & machine gun cartridge of the Wermacht during WW2.
Apparently any weapon that looks scary to the panty waists over at the Boston Globe
The left would very much like to re-define "assault rifle" to mean "any rifle except muzzle loaders, or rifles that employ a manually-operated bolt, pump, or lever action".
but is it elastic enough to include a "crew serviced weapon."?
Only if you're a blithering idiot, or dishonest. Which, of course, describes about 99.99% of the liberal "reporters", "journalists", MSM, etc.