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
An apostrophe does not mean "Look out! Here comes an S!" You do not shoot Glock's, drive car's, eat taco's, or have kid's. SRSBRO.