Not at all, but perhaps this is our disconnect: For Me, the Founding Fathers and most leading Enlightenment thinkers, there's a third option created by social contracts: A tyrannical government is itself treasonous, because it's entire legitimacy rests on the delegated authority it treats as irrelevant at best and an annoyance at worst. To restore a legitimate and just government ruling by and for the people is not treason, it's patriotism. What's perplexing is how any Brit, then or now, can accept that as given when speaking of Runnymede, the Cromwells Protectorate or the Glorious Revolution, then dismiss the American Revolution as treason. Someone may be subjectively changing the rules as and when it suits them, but it isn't me.

I think they'd be hard pressed to show us murdering women and children. We don't seek them out, though our bombs aren't perfect and the noble terrorists like to hide behind innocent noncombatants, but I chose my words carefully: "killing" is not "murder". snoop compared the American Revolution to Al Qaeda, and that analogy is deeply flawed. The Continental Army went after soldiers, not second graders.

In a word, no. Opposing a tyrant isn't treason, supporting one is, at least in Western states, which have long accepted the social contract as valid. Hence Jeffersons quote, unless you think it means the man who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" was instead arguing that Gods position as head of state justified rebellion against George III.