"Your honor, I would do ANYTHING to protect my children." "It's for the children." Repeat.
This is right along the lines of something I was thinking. Lets assume for a moment that the OPers problem extends to the entire period of visitation and that he made no violence or threats.
I would say there is a lie hiding in the judge's order. It is not a real decision allowing visitation. It is a denial of visitation masquerading as authorization. Authorizing visitation in one breath, while in the next breath denying the fundamental human right to defend the children should the need arise is not really a granting of visitation. It is a pretended granting. It is basically saying, "you can knowingly bring the children into an environment where you must watch them die as you stand defenseless if you want."
You're darn tootin the gun is for the children. Presumably, so is the visitation in part. Assuming no violence or threats on the part of the father, there is no reason the gun and visitation should be separated by a costumed government lawyer.