Yeah, I dropped it from my most recent post because of some similar thinking. I think it's important, though, to have some kind of schtick for the ranger, but that's covered with the details that you go into. So the bow thing isn't necessary, or wanted by some. Give the ranger some nature, sneaky, and tracking then let the player choose the rest.
^^ THIS! So this! Yes, the class should still be a martial 'warrior' class, but divorced of a specific weapon style. Any source you look at that could be construed as the classic ranger archetype includes various weapon use. What really should make them distinct is in their "wilderness" aspects. Stealth, tracking, survival, ambush, terrain use (both special movement and for tactical gain [e.g using the terrain to your advantage and to foes' disadvantage]). That to me is where the Ranger should start to be differentiated from the Fighter.
On a similar note, the Barbarian should also be a 'warrior' base, but where the fighter is the trained soldier who uses tactics, skill, training, etc. the barbarian instead fights purely with wild abandon and ferocity.
As to the Paladin concern... the problem is that the Cleric is Already a Paladin by its core definition. If you truly want to separate the Cleric and Paladin then Clerics should be more Priests. By that I mean they should be primarily spellcasters, backers (4E leader role stuff), masters of undead perhaps, and gain much more "molding" based on their Faith, more like 2E specialty priests. The Paladin should then be the plate wearing military branch of the faith.