From the article:

I don’t think the argument is valid. After WW II, crazy terrorists weren’t running through the streets firing 1903 bolt action Springfields into the air.

No Arab terrorists were on the daily newscasts blasting people with the semi-automatic Garand after WW II.

It’s the AK-47 and its long history with revolution, riots and terrorism that’s the problem.
I just so happened to be reading the Wikipedia page about World War I for the past few days and came across this in the section about India's involvement. Seems some terrorism and guerrilla warfare was mentioned. Weird, maybe that stuff didn't wait to be invented until the AK-47 was invented.

From Wiki:

Indian independence movement

Further information: Third Anglo-Afghan War and Hindu-German Conspiracy
Bengal and Punjab remained hotbeds of anti-colonial activities. Terrorism in Bengal, increasingly closely linked with the unrest in Punjab, was significant enough to nearly paralyse the regional administration. Also from the beginning of the war, expatriate Indian population, notably in Germany, United States and Canada, headed by the Indian Independence Committee and the Ghadar Party respectively, attempted to trigger insurrections in India on the lines of the 1857 uprising with Irish Republican, German and Turkish help in a great conspiracy that has since become known as the Hindu German conspiracy. The conspiracy also made attempts to rally the Amir of Afghanistan against British India, starting a political process in that country that culminated three years later in the assassination of Amir Habibullah and precipitation of the Third Anglo-Afghan war. A number of failed attempts at mutiny were made in India, of which the February mutiny plan and the Singapore mutiny remain most notable. This movement was suppressed by means of a vast international counter intelligence operation and draconian political acts (including the Defence of India act 1915) that lasted nearly ten years.[66][67][68]
The Ghadarites also attempted to organise incursions from the western border of India, recruiting Indian prisoners of war from Turkey, Germany, Mesopotamia. Ghadarite rebels, led by Sufi Amba Prasad, fought along with Turkish forces in Iran and in Turkey. Plans were made in Constantinopole to organise a campaign from Persia, through Baluchistan, to Punjab. These forces were involved skirmishes that captured the frontier city of Karman, taking into custody the British consul. Percy Sykes's campaign in Persia was directed mostly against these composite forces. It was at this time that the Aga Khan and his brother were recruited into the British War effort. However, the Aga Khan's brother was captured and shot dead by the rebels, who also successfully harassed British Forces in Sistan in Afghanistan, confining British forces to Karamshir in Baluchistan, later moving towards Karachi. They were able to take control of the coastal towns of Gawador and Dawar. The Baluchi chief of Bampur, having declared his independence from the British rule, also joined the Ghadarite forces. It was not before the war in Europe turned for the worse for Turkey and Baghdad was captured by the British forces that the Ghadarite forces, their supply lines starved, were finally dislodged. They retreated to regroup at Shiraz, where they were finally defeated after a siege. Amba Prasad Sufi was killed in this battle. The Ghadarites carried on guerilla warfare along with the Iranian partisans till 191.[69][70][71][72]
Although the conflict in India was not explicitly a part of the First World War, it was part of the wider strategic context. The British attempt to subjugate the rebelling tribal leaders drew away much needed troops from other theatres, in particular, of course, the Western Front, where the real decisive victory would be made.
The reason some Indian and Afghani tribes rose up simply came down to years of discontent which erupted, probably not coincidentally, during the First World War. It is likely that the tribal leaders were aware that Britain would not be able to field the required men, in terms of either number or quality, but underestimated the strategic importance of India to the British. Despite being far from the epicentre of the conflict, India provided a bounty of men for the fronts. Its produce was also needed for the British war effort and many trade routes running to other profitable areas of the Empire ran through India. Therefore, although the British were not able to send the men that they wanted, they were able to send enough to mount a gradual but effective counter-guerilla war against the tribesmen. The fighting continued into 1919 and in some areas lasted even longer.
Looks like there was enough of what the author was talking about to at least make it into the history books. Wonder what kind of guns they were using.