Because Jefferson was speaking in terms of social contracts, and bin Laden speaks in terms of religious fanaticism. Jefferson clearly intended no blank check for insurrection or rebellion, and if you examine the correspondence and journals of the Founding Fathers you'll find that nearly all of them were continually concerned with a question many Americans still ask: Have we reached the tipping point? Does the government oppress the people so heavily, is it so tyrannic, that rebellion becomes a patriotic DUTY under the social contract, or are government restrictions still the lesser of two evils. One of the great tragedies of the American Revolution is that, despite the Elder Pitts best efforts, what began as simple protests was met with retaliation so severe that it settled the question in the minds of most: Perhaps the Crown of 1770 was no tyrant making rebellion patriotic, but that of 1776 definitely was. When the government confiscates all weapons and begins stationing armed soldiers in the homes of civilians, they have defaulted on the social contract and abrogated their right to govern, by neglecting their DUTY to govern.

Which explains the other problem with the analogy, that Jefferson and his fellows went after soldiers and terrorists go after civilians. The whole reason for terrorism is that heavily outgunned and outnumbered militants CAN'T win a pitched battle with soldiers, so they try to force the opposition to the bargaining table by eroding their will to fight, via terrorism. It's the problem with pretty much all Islamic terror groups: Even if I considered terrorism legitimate, it's goal is to force an otherwise unobtainable negotiated settlement, yet when Islamic terrorists are offered such a settlement (e.g. the Oslo Agreement) they'll reject for the sake of more murder. Because, at the end of the day, that's all they are: Mass murderers who try to legitimize and rationalize their hatred and murder on specious political grounds. They're WORSE than terrorists.