I voted "No." though it's not exactly true. The bushy AR-15 absolutely fits the definition of "assault weapon" put forth by our legislators.
A better question would be is "assault weapon" as currently defined a useful tool for classifying firearms that are specifically more dangerous than others, or simply a term chosen for its scary-soundiness with an arbitrary definition based on scary-lookiness.
Like many other things, it's nothing more than our legislators making a half-assed attempt to make the public feel like something is being done about a problem that they have no useful or effective suggestions for. I guess when it's so easy to show pictures of scary-looking guns and misuse words to draw a line between two things, there's no push to take a look at what will address the roots of these people's problems.
Non Sibi, Sed Suis