Back to the original question, I think that the original ban was kind of pointless. I mean everyone thinks that the ban is against "machine guns" when it's not. The ban is against cosmetic features found on rifles. Here is the criteria that would get a rifle banned. (has to meet two to quailify for as an assault rifle)
1. A folding stock or telescopic stock
2. A pistol grip
3. A bayonet mount
4. A flash suppressor
5. A gernade attachment
So I have to ask how does a folding stock, pistol grip, or flash suppressor make a rifle any more dangerous than the next. The answer is they don't, they are purely cosmetic features for the rifle. As far as a bayonet mount, when was the last time you heard about a drive by or schoolyard bayonetting? Finally genade launchers are already illegal so that addition was kind of pointless.
It just seems to me that when everyone hears the term assualt weapon they assume a fully automatic weapon that in the hands of a postal worker could desimate a sorting facility. This just isn't the the case though. The rifle banned are no more dangerous than the ones availble on the shelf at walmart. The only difference is that they look meaner and are associated with their military versions that are not availible to the general public.