First, the traditional interpretation of "thou shall not kill" is that "kill" specifical means "murder", or unjustified homicide. Many translations now use "murder" instead of "kill" because it is much closer to the Hebrew meaning.
from the
www.jpfo.org website
"Jewish law set forth in the Talmud states, If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him. (Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994, 2, 72a; The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth. 1990, 58a, 62b).
and:
The Talmud repeatedly mandates self-defense against an attacker. For example, in Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin -- which deals with Legal Judgments - theRabbis explain Exodus 22:1, which states, "If a burglar is caught in the act of breaking in, and is struck and killed, it is not considered an act of murder." The next sentence explains, "However, if he robs in broad daylight, then it is an act of murder [to kill him]."(7)
The first sentence clearly refers to a burglar who works at night. This burglar may be killed, presumably because he enters covertly, knowing that people could be present. He is deemed to have lethal intent. If the homeowner is being robbed by his father or anyone else where it can be correctly determined by a court of law (hence the phrase 'broad daylight' -- if it is clear as daylight that the intruder would not harm the homeowner) that the intruder would never use deadly force to commit the robbery even should the occupant offer resistance, lethal defense is not permissable. If the intruder and his intentions are in doubt, deadly force may be used by the homeowner to defend himself or herself even if the robbery occurs in broad daylight.
On this text, the Rabbis base a general proposition: "If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." The Rabbis explain that a thief who enters a building covertly, must know that people:
are likely to be in the building;
will likely try to defend their property.
Thus, the Rabbis presume such an intruder to be ready for a confrontation. They conclude that any person confronting such a thief must be ready to use deadly force against him, if necessary. Use of such force is not required - one does not have to kill the intruder -- but one must do so if that is the only way to save one's own life."
also from jpfo:
". Protestant Doctrine: Individual has personal and unalienable right to self-defense, even against government. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex [1644] 1982, pp. 159-166, 183-185 (Sprinkle Publications edition.) Jesus advised his disciples to arm themselves in view of likely persecution. Luke 22:36. "
Now from the Catholic perspective:
His Holiness Pope John Paul II
Evangelium Vitae
Encyclical Letter on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life
March 25, 1995
Self-Defense Is Not Just a Right, But a Grave Duty
To the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Men and Women Religious, Lay Faithful, and All People of Good Will
55. This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes.[43] There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.
Moreover, "legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State".[44] Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.[45]
Footnotes:
[43] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2263-2269; cf. also Catechism of the Council of Trent III, ## 327-332.
[44] Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2265.
[45] Cf. SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 64, a. 7; SAINT ALPHONSUS DE LIGUORI, Theologia Moralis, 1. III, tr. 4, c. 1, dub. 3."
Now, there's been a trend in current American liberal theology to ignore these principles, such as the position papers of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Methodists. Both of these protestant branches advise it is one's Christian duty to submit to any violent assault, even if the price is one's death (and presumably the death of other innocent in tha way of the murderer--must remeber that when the next version of Charles Manson comes calling....)
no 
