You still haven't defined "assault weaponry".
And neither has anybody else who is calling for the ban, nor has any law-maker who has actually written bans. All we see is hand-waving and waffling.
Free clue: the term "assault rifle" does not actually have a defined meaning. The so-called "assault rifles" that people are whining about are mostly poor quality rifles gussied up with flash hiders, larger clips, perforated barrel covers, skeleton and folding stocks, optic and light rails, and other bits of glitter that do absolutely nothing for the actual business of pushing lead down a tube. These purely visual bits are about as useful to the utility of the tool as racing stripes are on your average teenager's first car. So why are the politicians trying to ban them? Simply because they look scary and appear quite menacing in a photo lineup on the evening news. Quite frankly, most of my hunting rifles are far more lethal (in the right hands) than any of the so-called "assault rifles" on the banned list.
For example, take a look at the lovely Ruger 10.22. It's a wonderful little carbine in .22 Long Rifle. An excellent choice for a first rifle for the kid on your xmas list. Small, lightish, accurate, durable (mine was a gift from an Uncle in 1967, and still looks/works like new) ... an all around great tool to learn the basics with. Including safety, maintenance, cleaning, etc. What's not to like?
However, should you want to spend some money, you can easily buy the parts to make it look like an "assault rifle". Like this. Way scary, aren't they? WE MUST BAN THEM!!! ... despite the fact that they are the same exact carbine under the superficial crap bolted on top. THIS is the kind of bullshit that the anti-gun set are screaming at the GreatUnwashed who don't know any better. Brainwashing is ugly, but it works.