There are divine rights, civil rights, natural rights, and voluntary rights.
Wrong.
The only rights that exist (not talking about man's conceptions) are:
The right to Life and Liberty; to Worship; to Free Speech; to Purchase and Use Property; to Purchase, Own, and Carry Individual Defensive Weapons including Firearms; to Protect the Innocent; to Corporally Punish one's Children; to Due Process of Law; and to Fail.
Everything else is a privilege or permission.
"A right" is just a linguistic term for a ceding of choice. Divine rights are given by God. Civil rights are given by social agreement.
If there's an agreement, then it's not a right.
Right's are inherent, they're not dependent on an agreement.
Natural rights are determined by the laws of physics,
What are you even talking about?
The laws of physics have nothing to do with morality.
and voluntary rights are afforded by individual choice.
If it's voluntary, it's not a right.
If that is the case, how is it that mankind has the ability to ignore, defy, and countermand that right?
Because God created man with the freedom to do so.
A "right" just means that "I can do this, and no one can prevent me from doing so justly."
How is it that nature, too, is able to ignore, defy, and counteract that right?
It doesn't, because it can't, by definition, do any of those things.
You're over-anthropomorphizing nature to make it seem like it can do things that it cannot.
Even some lowly insects can deny you your right to live.
Not intentionally. They're just insects.
A right is not a guarantee that you will be able to do something, it is the ability to do something without unjustly being interfered with.
And yet we do it all the time. So apparently we DO have that right if we deem it unto ourselves.
No. Infringing upon someone else's rights is not itself a right.
How do we know a right was given by God if men can ignore it whenever they choose?
Supra.
Why should we care that God gave us a right when men can ignore it whenever they choose?
Because if we don't, bad things happen.
I think very few men recognize the difference between a divine right and a divine gift.
Gifts have nothing to do with this discussion.
Because they much prefer to presume that their own desires and ideas of righteousness are "divinely right".
There is nothing presumed here.
God gives us each the gift of life but He does not guarantee it to us.
Which has little to nothing to do with the fact that He gave us the right to life.
Again, a "right" is not a guarantee, it's saying "I can do this, and no one can prevent me from doing so justly" it is the ability to do something without unjustly being interfered with.
Governments are created by men to serve men.
Governmental authority comes from God, not men. Haven't you ever read Romans 13?
But of what practical value is an "inalienable right" when anyone can reject, defy, and usurp it at any time for any reason they choose?
This is a stolen concept fallacy.
If there was no "inalienable right," then there would be nothing to "reject, defy, or usurp."
What, exactly, is "inalienable" about it given this circumstance?
Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away. The right to life cannot be taken away by men. It can be FORFEITED by committing a capital crime, AKA a crime worthy of the death penalty. Only the government has the right to enact punishments for crime, however, including the death penalty.