I came up with an analogy to explain to the politicians why this is such a very bad idea. It goes like this...
The Las Vegas mass shooting was terrible.
Maybe everyone should be armed.
And legally permitted to shoot back in retaliation.
That way, when a crazed gunman starts firing, everyone will fire back at him.
Of course, a moment's thought shows this to be an astoundingly bad idea. Most people are very bad at handling guns. Couldn't hit the side of a barn at two paces. There will be bullets flying everywhere. Somebody is going to get hit accidentally, causing his friends to return fire at somebody who was trying to hit the crazed gunman but instead hit a spectator. His friends are going to retaliate. Pretty soon everybody is shooting at everybody else, and the crazed gunman shits himself from laughter.
That, privileged white gentlemen, is exactly how your cyber-retaliation will play out. It isn't just ineffective, it actually makes matters a lot worse.
To which the response is "I cain't see nothing wrong with arming everywun like the saycond amendmunt sayes. Freedumb!" and they pass the cyber-retaliation bill too.