Did the OP, or are we using the proper definition of assault rifle, or are we on about assault weapons. Regarding them, I could see owning an ar15. I know how to shoot it, it has light/cheap ammo, it's easy to clean and repair (I learned some of that too), it's accurate to way out even on the iron sights and the round will take stuff down. I think the tumble would mess a bear up pretty well. Other than that, people have many reasons that they want particular rifles. Why should I be forced to learn some other weapon, how to shoot, clean, maintain, etc just because it looks mean. Capacity? Nonsense. It's just a good rifle that I know how to use proper, and I don't see it so much as an 'assault weapon'. Really, taking the military design off the shelf is wasting civilian knowledge in regard to firearms and asking for a higher percentage of ignorant gun-owners.
Bolt action is not the best rifle for most people who have fired rifles before. Most people who have fired rifles, outside of hunting areas, did so in the military. Normal men and women who might want to hunt/defend/'play' with a rifle, millions. Let's take the rifle they know how to use off the market? It's tantamount to intentionally creating underskilled rifle users.
An ar15 is a rifle, not an Assault Something. Excuse me if I don't want the government to force me to use an antique should I want a rifle. Musket argument... done.