Just to note, assault rifle specifically refers to automatic fire weapons, either fully automatic or burst fire. If a weapon is semi-auto only, it is not an assault rifle, even if it looks like one. Fully automatic, and burst fire weapons are already heavily regulated and completely banned for new sale to civilians. (Only ones registered before May 1986 are allowed to be in circulation, and even they are closely watched and more importantly, extremely expensive to get ahold of.)
This is why gun people roll their eyes at pushes against "assault weapons" or "assault rifles". The last law against "assault weapons" from the Clinton era was almost useless, focused on superficial features and was mostly an annoyance more than anything keeping anything specific out of people's hands. While "assault rifles" are already extremely regulated and effectively banned except as collectors items to the extremely rich or business investments for exclusive use at a gun range. (At least one range around here has an automatic weapon you can rent to use, at their range, with one of their people standing next to you, and using their very expensively priced ammunition for it. You're looking at between $200-300 just to rent it and buy two small boxes of ammo, which, since it's automatic, you could burn through in just a few minutes.)
Now, I don't even argue that 2nd amendment requires unrestricted access to firearms. I'm fine with some reasonable limitations, and I'm even willing to bend quite a bit on "reasonable" if it means the politician pushing it is doing otherwise really good things. But it chafes me to hear ANY politician, talking about regulation on ANY topic, when they're so obviously poorly educated on said topic or simply lying to push a political agenda.