A "Civilian (innocuous sounding to lull the masses) Security Force" is a dangerous agenda to attempt to solve society's problems by blurring the civilian/military divide. Samuel Huntington called this the "Societal Imperative" in his work on Civil-Military relations. Our nation fundamentally functions on the well-being of this divide, and the fact that the military stays separate from civil affairs so as to prevent the onset of a totalitarian state, the misuse of the military by civilian leadership, the politicizing of the military, or the degradation of the military's fighting ability.
If you would like to read the theory (widely acknowledged as the most authoritative on the subject of civil-military relations in a liberal-democratic society such as ours), check out:
The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957)
If you would like to see where this will lead, please read this thesis by a USAF LtCol:
www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/p087.pdf
As for the guns, whoever mentioned about the superficial aspects of the "assault" weapons ban was spot on. As for laws restricting purchase, this quote is apt:
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt.
When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults.
The people who register their guns are not the ones responsible for gun-related crimes. Think about it. Outlawing guns just provides the criminals more impunity. To quote Chris Rock, "Don't go to parties with metal detectors. Sure it might feel safe inside, but what about [all those people] with guns on the outside. They know you ain't got one."