I found out, Heavenly Sage, Freedom God, it's fine to change the concept secretly, and twist my words, and then ask me a rhetorical question.

I said that I couldn’t hold it head-on, and I found evidence to tell you. In the end, you said that you were too lazy to argue, and asked me if an infinite bullet machine gun could stop the city function?

How can I draw this conclusion from my words?

Do you mean to say, I said that he can't hold it, he is a ghost and can cause ghost damage?

I wrote that sentence very clearly, the ordinary s can't hold the machine gun from the front.

If you can’t hold it head-on, you can’t bear the kinetic energy of the machine gun bullet.

The hungry wolf was hitting head-on because someone was behind in the house, he couldn't hide, there was flowing water rock broken fist.

Why do Vest Vest and the prisoner fight head-on? Defense against bullets? I can still bounce the bullet, but I can't do it.

But they can still win, because they can use the machine gun to start the rush, they can go around, they can use the rock mass, and they can use the object to throw.

I keep saying that you can’t hold it up front, you can’t hold it up front, you eat it up front?

I said that if I can't hold it head-on, does it mean that the other party can cause a city to stop?

Tease me?

You secretly change the concept first, and then twist my meaning. After I refute, you are using counterexamples to prove it.

What do you want to prove? Read the latest chapters, please pay attention to the WeChat account: rdww444