Saying that “gun owners should be harassed no more than automobile owners are harassed,” Rosie O’Donnell today vowed to fight for an end to the thousands of gun laws that go beyond the simple standard of what it takes to own an automobile.

“Automobiles are much more dangerous than firearms,” said O’Donnell. She pointed out that there are no age restrictions on purchasing or owning automobiles, and that any 16-year old who takes the mandatory high school driver’s education classes can use an automobile in public. “That’s the level of ‘gun control’ that I support,” said the talk show host. “Gun control means hitting your target.”

“You can purchase any vehicle you desire with no license or registration,” said O’Donnell, “from a bicycle to a Kenworth semi. You can even transport your automobile without any license or registration, as long as you don’t physically drive it in public.” O’Donnell advocates the same ease of purchasing and privacy in owning firearms. “It’s just common sense,” said O’Donnell.

O’Donnell supports ending all point-of-purchase background checks, saying that no such checks are required for purchasing any vehicles. She also supports disbanding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, or at least “removing firearms from their jurisdiction. We have no equivalent national Bureau of Automobile Ownership,” she said.

When it comes to licensing the carry and public use of firearms, O’Donnell supports minimum restrictions. “Anyone can get a driver’s license as long as they can spell their name correctly on the second attempt,” said O’Donnell. “A simple, five-minute written test is all that should be required,” for concealed carry, she believes, “and, as in driver’s tests, the questions should be easy and the answers should be given out beforehand for study.”

O’Donnell also supports target shooting in public schools, and says that “target shooting should be mandatory by the age of 16, just as driver’s education is mandatory. We don’t require drivers to prove their ability when they request a license, we simply ensure that everyone who goes through our schools knows how to drive.” O’Donnell believes that the same should apply to carry licenses. “If someone proves that they can’t use a vehicle, we take their vehicle or license away,” said O’Donnell. “That’s the way we should treat firearms ownership and use.” She pointed out that it makes sense to apply the same standard to firearms, because “an incompetent firearms owner might, at worst, kill a single person. But an incompetent automobile driver can take out an entire family or busload of children with a single mistake. Our priorities are screwed up,” she said, “when we focus on the tiny number of firearms accidents per year and ignore the huge number of automobile accidents.”

She says that the best system would be a “class” system such as is used for automobiles. “If you wish to carry a handgun, rifle, or shotgun in public,” says O’Donnell, “that should be a simple license to acquire.” Carrying and using a fully-automatic weapon in public under her plan would require only a little more training, “just as a semi-driver is required to undergo a little extra testing.” But such licenses would only be required for actually using the weapon in public. “No license at all should be required for owning any weapon,” she said, “no matter how big, powerful, or technologically advanced, nor should any license or registration be required for using any weapon on private property.”

She also supports the notion of firearms owner’s insurance, similar to driver’s insurance, but notes that “most firearms owners would receive money under such insurance, not pay money. We know from research that firearms ownership and carry saves society money.” O’Donnell foresees that firearms insurance would probably pay firearms owners a few dollars a month if they merely own firearms, and would pay them up to ten or twenty dollars a month if they carried regularly, depending on where they lived and other demographic information. She said that the money to pay for this insurance would be levied on those who choose not to own firearms, since “they benefit when other law-abiding citizens own or carry firearms.”