It's a simple set of issues that people like to make complex. I deal in the world as it is, not as I'd like it to be and that has a big effect on my views of misguided efforts like "lever action assault rifles".
1) Let's be honest, this is all about marketing and trying to sell people more guns. there's nothing wrong with that per se, except when it's done in a way where the desire to maximize short term profits can cause long term problems. (Ask Sig how much they "saved" denying their P320 had a problem 6-7 years ago when it would have been an affordable fix for them. They should have talked to Remington about the economics of not fixing the Rem 700 trigger.)
In the case of "assault" anything, it a marketing effort that just pokes the bear by creating a public image that never goes over well with the non gun crowd. Exercise of 2A rights should never be viewed as an endeavor where "triggering" a group of people is seen as a plus. That never works out well and it works less well as gun ownership percentages decline.
Bill Ruger took a lot of heat for his willingness to agree to not sell 30 round magazines directly to the public, but he understood the politics involved and he kept the wood stocked Mini 14 and its 20 round magazines off proposed ban lists for decades, even though it has a higher cyclic rate than the AR-15, can be converted to a binary trigger with just an office staple, and was used in its proportionate share of mass shootings.
When it comes to guns and lethality, the anti gun crowd is really clueless. They won't realize that a tarted up "lever action assault rifle" is heavier, bulkier, more snag prone and overall slower and less effective than a traditional wood and blued steel lever gun chambered in the same cartridge, with the same magazine length.
They will however see and hear the word "assault", along with all of the evil features they associate with military weapons and immediately decide it must be banned. Unfortunately, legislators, attorneys, and attorneys in bureaucratic reg writing and enforcement roles will see all lever action rifles as being the same, if not immediately, then down the road.
In short the whole lever action assault rifle thing is a marketing ploy posing a solution to a non existent problem that in the end will create a far bigger problem.
---
For what it's worth the customers for these lever action "assault" rifles, are also pretty clueless that they are taking what was by design a light weight, streamlined, extremely handy and well balanced carbine and turning it into a clunky over weight piece of tacticool garbage.
45-70 is also an incredibly poor choice for a tactical carbine. If you have one light enough to be effective it will kick like a mule. Even then you are giving up half the magazine capacity for a level of power you don't need while gaining nothing in armor penetration.
A 20" Model 92 in .357 Mag will launch a 158 gr JSP at 1820 FPS and give it an accurate and effective range out past 100 yards, it won't beat you to death, and it'll give you 11 rounds in the magazine. And it's light, handy, streamlined and very snag resistant.
If a tang or receiver type aperture sight wont work for you, put a small red dot on the barrel. no rail required.
If you want more velocity, and a longer effective range the .30-30 is still a good choice, with an effective range out to 230 yards no more than +/- 5" from point of aim.
That said, .308 would be ideal and the .307 Win was a rimmed variant of the .308 made for tubular magazine lever gun purposes. It would be great to see that brought back.
